Brexit impact on UK FMOTL

[NYGman]

This post isn't meant to be political, so please don't turn it into a political post.

As the UK is considering their upcoming In/Out vote with respect to their status in the EU, I was wondering, how this will impact the FMOTL movement.

I know many of them seem to rely heavily on the European Convention on Human Rights to justify their position and threatening to appeal to the ECJ when they lose in court. If the UK were to Exit the EU, I would think this argument and threat will no longer work.

My observations:

1) UK FMOTL seem to be pro-England (BNP/UKIP) type of people, and seem to support the exit?
2) Would they support a Brexit, when they may lose there their appeal to the ECJ or the ability to quote the European Convention on Human Rights ad nauseum?
2) Will they realize that the ECJ and the European Convention on Human Rights may not be available if the UK exists the EU, or are they going to continue using this, like they use the UCC today?

Discuss....

[notorial dissent]

I guess my question from my distance/remove across the pond would what difference would it really make? The footie/sovrun types already think every other court and feel good pronouncement by out of country organization other than their home country courts have some magic authority to open their jail doors. Intl' Courts of Justice, assorted imaginary common law int'l courts, the UCC, etc.

Just as an ancillary query, has ECJ actually ever interfered in any judgments entered against them?

I keep expecting one of them to claim rights by the Universal Declaration of Freedom by the Mars Colony. So color me a bit cynical.

[FatGambit]

I'd be surprised if they even realised what Brexit means.

[Bones]

I'd be surprised if they even realised what Brexit means.

James Bradley thought it was a new breakfast cereal

[PeanutGallery]

It likely wouldn't make a single bit of difference. Most of them quote the UCC or other obscure laws from less developed nations and Canada in their woo. Likely it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference, and whichever way the vote goes will of course be the way "we" wanted it to go (aside from Boris Johnson who wants everyone to vote out, so we can stay in on better terms).

As for European Law I would doubt that it has ever or will ever matter in regard to their court actions, first off I don't think they'd be capable of finding and recognising a valid and relevant piece of case law (outside of a scattergun approach) and secondly I don't think they'll be able to negotiate a case up the courts to get one into Europe (you have to exhaust every national court, and courts can refuse leave to appeal or to hear your case).

This obviously presents a problem, because it could well be that some of those who go down the woo path might well have arguable cases but lack the ability and aptitude to find effective representation or to argue the relevant points. I find it troubling that this could lead to miscarriages of justice or unjustified hardship.

I would suppose that what I find most troubling is that people spurn their chance at restitution with spurious arguments rather than reasoned litigation and that they are encouraged to do this by those who made the same mistake.

[jcolvin2]

I'd be surprised if they even realised what Brexit means.

James Bradley thought it was a new breakfast cereal

A breakfast cereal with added fiber to enhance the efficiency of the lower portion of the digestive system, i.e., make for a quicker exit.

[PeanutGallery]

To be fair I'm not exactly enamoured with this fascination for trying to create new words by just slapping bits of perfectly good existing words together. Whoever came up with this appalling bastardisation of a word should be mocked for showing that they are unable or unwilling to use the words British Exit. It's a pandering to the new text speaking illiterates who seem to obsess over mashing words together to define a new celebrity relationship.

[longdog]

This post isn't meant to be political, so please don't turn it into a political post.

As the UK is considering their upcoming In/Out vote with respect to their status in the EU, I was wondering, how this will impact the FMOTL movement.

I know many of them seem to rely heavily on the European Convention on Human Rights to justify their position and threatening to appeal to the ECJ when they lose in court. If the UK were to Exit the EU, I would think this argument and threat will no longer work.

My observations:

1) UK FMOTL seem to be pro-England (BNP/UKIP) type of people, and seem to support the exit?
2) Would they support a Brexit, when they may lose there their appeal to the ECJ or the ability to quote the European Convention on Human Rights ad nauseum?
2) Will they realize that the ECJ and the European Convention on Human Rights may not be available if the UK exists the EU, or are they going to continue using this, like they use the UCC today?

Discuss....

The European Convention on Human Rights is enforced by the European Court of Human Rights which is a part of the Council of Europe not by the ECJ which is a part of the EU and only rules on EU treaty issues.

If the UK leaves the EU it doesn't mean it will leave the Council of Europe. Sadly but predictably the right wing press have been deliberately conflating the two for decades.

[Skeleton]

The UK has threatened to leave the European Council as opposed to the European Union on a number of occasions, and I have yet to see any reaction from any FMOTL. I have seen mention of the European Court of Human Rights but that's when they think the Court has overruled the UK, they also seemingly fail to have grasped that only that only a tiny fraction of the UK's Human Rights cases are heard in Europe.

[longdog]

I think I'm right in saying (but not 100% sure) that membership of the EU is conditional on the state being bound by the EConHR and adopting in to domestic law which is why we have The Human Rights Act. Britain could leave the EU but remain a part of the CE but not the other way round.

As you rightly say... The majority of human rights cases today are decided by British courts not the ECHR which is something the cranks don't seem to have grasped. According to their <ahem>logic</ahem> The Human Rights Act is statute and therefore presumably doesn't apply... Or something.

[Skeleton]

I think I'm right in saying (but not 100% sure) that membership of the EU is conditional on the state being bound by the EConHR and adopting in to domestic law which is why we have The Human Rights Act. Britain could leave the EU but remain a part of the CE but not the other way round.

As you rightly say... The majority of human rights cases today are decided by British courts not the ECHR which is something the cranks don't seem to have grasped. According to their <ahem>logic</ahem> The Human Rights Act is statute and therefore presumably doesn't apply... Or something.

Long that is my understanding of it mate, but every time the UK has threatened to leave, the French especially have gone "hee haw hee haw I dare you to" which I presume is why the UK has backed down. The whole damn thing is complicated, as you say the cranks will simply not get it. Their probably still looking for it on the Magna Carta.

[Hercule Parrot]

Will they realize that the ECJ and the European Convention on Human Rights may not be available if the UK exists the EU....?

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) mainly rules on European Union (EU) law, so has jurisdiction across the 28 member states of the EU. ECJ cases are mainly about internal EU matters, although they hold themselves to be compliant with the general principles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). If we Brexit, we cease to be subject to ECJ. But that will have limited effect on the individual civil rights type of cases.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is a separate body, which rules on matters relating to European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR-doh!) and has jurisdiction across the 47 member states of the Council of Europe (CoE). ECHR is more involved and effective in individual civil rights type of cases, it has the primary duty of enforcing ECHR-doh!. If we Brexit, we do not automatically cease to be subject to ECHR.

CoE/ECHR and EU/ECJ are completely separate bodies, although there's obviously a lot of co-operation at various levels. It is common for them to be conflated, sometimes innocently and sometimes for dishonest political rhetoric. UK politicians enjoy raging about those damned foreigners telling us how to run our country, and blurring it all into one big Camembert-munching conspiracy against UK.

I don't much care whether we Brexit. The modern world has little interest in (friendly) nation state borders nowadays. Global corporations will ignore Brexit. And modern commerce, cheap flights and the internet will ensure that our citizens continue to trade and exchange our cultures. Unless the government of UK institutes a repressive "Berlin Wall" border policy, Brexit won't make much real difference to ordinary people in the UK.

I do care about our allegiance to ECHR. I do not think that a national government or leader should have unfettered power as a matter of principle, not least because we cannot know the character of our future leaders. After working for a long time to persuade other nations (eg Russia) to accept the moderation of the global community, I would be appalled if we ourselves withdrew.

[notorial dissent]

The thing I have consistently noticed with the sovrun/FOTL/freemen collection is that they usually don't believe that statutes apply to them, UNLESS, they think it will get them something, then they are unassailable, in this as in most all things they are WRONG. Kind of like the American UCC is good law in the UK, Canada, wherever.

[PeanutGallery]

I do care about our allegiance to ECHR. I do not think that a national government or leader should have unfettered power as a matter of principle, not least because we cannot know the character of our future leaders. After working for a long time to persuade other nations (eg Russia) to accept the moderation of the global community, I would be appalled if we ourselves withdrew.

While this may be veering into the political, I can certainly agree with this. When my father was born, England and Germany were about to be entrenched in a war due to the rantings of an Austrian madman. Now I have a great many friends who are Austrian and am slowly learning to speak German as a desire to foster that friendship. They are such good friends of mine, that the concept of going to war against them is for me unthinkable.

That is what Europe has done for us, we've learned as nations the value of trying to solve disputes between ourselves with our words and not our bombs we've also learned to share (although sometimes we could share a bit better). As for the Human Rights legislation is needed because we have seen, time and time again, what does happen when these are not respected. I am very wary of any government that wishes to curtail or abridge the freedom of it's citizens as this is usually the first step on the road to tyranny.

[longdog]

The thing I have consistently noticed with the sovrun/FOTL/freemen collection is that they usually don't believe that statutes apply to them, UNLESS, they think it will get them something, then they are unassailable, in this as in most all things they are WRONG. Kind of like the American UCC is good law in the UK, Canada, wherever.

I'm pretty sure it was over on Goofy that I saw somebody getting stroppy with the DWP because they had been summoned to a medical for their disability benefits claim and they demanded to know what law actually said they had to attend a medical to receive the benefit along with the usual 'stautes don't apply to me' crap. Now while I have very serious issues with the Work Capability Assessment in principle and from personal experience even I can see the glaring error in that logic.

Dear claimant...

As you believe statute laws do not apply to you I have closed your claim for benefits under the social security act.

Love.

The DWP.

[grixit]

To be fair I'm not exactly enamoured with this fascination for trying to create new words by just slapping bits of perfectly good existing words together. Whoever came up with this appalling bastardisation of a word should be mocked for showing that they are unable or unwilling to use the words British Exit. It's a pandering to the new text speaking illiterates who seem to obsess over mashing words together to define a new celebrity relationship.

While the practice has probably gone on since the beginning of language, through the natural erosion of frequently used word combinations, the first person known to have overtly spliced words was Lewis Carroll. Jabberwocky is full of them. He also coined the term used for such words, "portmanteau", which was a kind of collapsible suitcase.

Later it became a popular way to name businesses, such as Nabisco, Amaco, and for that matter, Pemex, which shows that it is not limited to words in English.

Then we have government functions. Cointelpro. Potus. Secdev.

And since the 80s it's been standard practice to join the names of celebrity couples.

I'd say it's too well established to do anything about.

[Chaos]

I'd be surprised if they even realised what Brexit means.

James Bradley thought it was a new breakfast cereal

Brexit is Brexi x 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNMfYCTUAvk

[NYGman]

Sorry, didn't mean to offend by using a made up word, however it is one that seems to have become quite common.

I think much of what has been pointed out make a while lot of sense. I just still find their (Sovridots - ) contradictory positions funny. The fact that they mix up what various courts, tribunals, conventions, non applicable law, treaties, old law, non relevant dictionaries, etc. Is just part of the norm for them.

I just find the juxtaposition of wanting to use some of these things the EU has brought in to defend their crazy positions, when many seem to be xenophobic, borderline racist, anti establishment, and likely pro UK exit, to be quite funny.

[Hercule Parrot]

I just find the juxtaposition of wanting to use some of these things the EU has brought in to defend their crazy positions, when many seem to be xenophobic, borderline racist, anti establishment, and likely pro UK exit, to be quite funny.

Absolutely. I think they advocate this because they believe future UK governments will be sympathetic to their Trumpesque views, and with the ECHR pushed aside will be unfettered in carrying them out. Concentration camps for gypsies, bricking-up the channel tunnel, Paul Dacre appointed to govern the BBC, etc.

[Chaos]

Sorry, didn't mean to offend by using a made up word

I'm not offended. Just seeing the word makes me hungry