If the European Court of Human Rights is an "external court" than so is the US Supreme Court vis a vis the individual US states.
We in the UK vote for European MPs, and (more importantly, if slightly indirectly) for the people who really run the EU, who are the Prime Ministers of the member states.
There have been any number of public debates over the years, but not everything the public wants is necessarily good (like capital punishment), and not all members of the public have the knowledge or interest to take an intelligent part in such a debate. It's a complex issue.
In fact, many people welcomed the adoption into English Law of the ECHR, and many very good things have flowed from it. This may be a negative result, but overall I think the net result has been very positive.
The Euro-sceptic element in the UK is led by a wholly dishonourable press, which tends to ignore the many advantages of the EU, not least the end of war in Western Europe, and the creation of a large trading bloc with fewer and fewer barriers.
John
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 19:01:39 -0400, frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Comments interspersed:
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 23:24:46 +0100, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Frank, Britain is part of the European Union, and part of the deal is that
the European Court of Human Rights is the supreme court for issues of this
sort.
I understand that. It doesn't make it right. It's an erosion of the basic sovreignty rights of a country to allow an external court make decisions that affect its citizens. I'm assuming that Britain has some powers of appointment of the judges, but still, I imagine that the majority of the judges will be non-British appointees. Maybe some people think it's okay to have such international tribunals making decisions that may affect their daily lives, but I wouldn't.
The same sort of thing applies in federal countries like Australia, Canada, Brazil, India and the USA.
Huh? I'm not sure what you mean. If a country isn't a signator to the treaty or agreement, it doesn't apply to them. What do Oz, Canada, Brazil et al have to do with this?
Although Britain only recently adopted the European Convention on Human
Rights (and then, only partially), it was, I believe, British lawyers who
drafted it back in the 40s.
That may be, but that still doen't make it democratic. Who appointed these lawyers? All I asked was if there was public debate on the matter. Not just about joining the EU, but about signing this Human Rights treaty. And, if there was debate, was it commonly known that an external court would make decisions that would have an impact upon your citizens. If not, then this is not a democratic organ. That's all.
I imagine that any alleged breach of this law is likely to result in the
injured party suing the other party for damages. Our courts are a little
stingier than American courts when it comes to awarding damages, and I
imagine that any prima donna who brings actions frivolously is likely to
be awarded the traditional halfpenny for his or her pains.
I worry about someone who's ~not~ a celebrity taking me to court because he sees a photo I took of him on Photo.net or in PUG. Maybe they'll lose, maybe their damages will be minimal, but I'll still get dragged into a needless legal proceeding. Alarmist? Perhaps.
Personally, I don't think it's going to be a major problem.
I hope you're right.
cheers, frank
-- Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
