Some real news maybe ?

[Budapest]

The ECHR is not the EU, nor is it run by it, though the latter is subject to the former. I understand that Britain signed up to the ECHR long before joining the EU.
The European Court of Justice should not be confused with the European Court of Human Rights.

I would say that the European Court of Human Rights is the cornerstone of the European Union. It's why us Europeans like to call ourselves 'civilised'.

Getting back to the Assange case, if he loses his appeal in the UK it will go to the ECHR, whether or not Assange ends up back in Sweden. There's no way that I can see the ECHR allowing extradition to a country like the USA, which has the death penalty and routine torture of prisoners.

If Assange does get extradited to the USA you can kiss goodbye to the European 'civilisation' bit.

[scottycelt]

Surely that was never much of an argument - after all, there are plenty of translators in the EU institutions.

On the other hand politics, history, culture, the huge variation in the economies of the different member states (an oversight in the creation of the Eurozone which has already proved enormously costly) are serious obstacles to a federal Europe - as is the probability that a great many people in Europe would not want it to happen, so that it would have to be imposed by the political elites. That would be a recipe for serious tension within and between countries and an acceleration in already rising nationalism and extremism. Not, imo, something to be welcomed.

This idea that 'the people of Europe don't want it' is not backed by the evidence ... it simply chimes with general Eurosceptism in the UK, that's all.

For example, all the opinion polls show that the Greeks are still overwhelmingly in favour of staying in the Euro, yet all we ever hear about is politically-motivated left-wing agitation and the inevitable right-wing fascist response on the streets of Athens. The Greek people are not daft and know where their true interests lie!

In my opinion, Europe's problems can only be solved by more political co-operation and integration, not less, and the current problems ( caused initially by a crisis of laissez-faire capitalism in the US which then infected social-democratic Europe) require radical political and economic solutions. Relatively poor states like Alabama in the US are protected by the federal system, and countries like Greece would be the same in a federal Europe.

The worrying thing for me is the usual British response of blaming everything on our European neighbours when we were almost as guilty as the Americans in causing the financial problems in the first place!

It's time the British finally woke up and played a major part in the almost now inevitable creation of an United States of Europe and stopped shiivering on the sidelines like someone scared to get into the local swimming-pool in case he/she might drown, rather than learn to swim to the safety of the other side with the mutual assistance of others ...

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm all for the Socialist United States of Europe.

[scottycelt]

I'm all for the Socialist United States of Europe.

Then get out there campaigning with your red flag, S_A ... there's much more chance of that happening than a UK Republic, believe me ...

[Budapest]

The worrying thing for me is the usual British response of blaming everything on our European neighbours when we were almost as guilty as the Americans in causing the financial problems in the first place

I have to call that one out, because the present worldwide financial mess has been caused almost entirely by the greed and stupidity of Wall Street, just as the 1930s Depression was. The EU is passing laws to regulate its banks (see here), whereas the UK and USA governments continue to bail-out corrupt bankers with tax payer's money and then tell the tax payers that they have to go through years of 'austerity'.

You couldn't make it up.

[Pabmusic]

To be fair, the current European set-up is confusing...

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was Europe's response to the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Council of Europe (47 members currently) was established to promote democracy and protect human rights and the rule of law in Europe; it administers the Convention through the European Commission of Human Rights, and European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) at Strasbourg. Legally and administratively, it is nothing to do with the EU.

When the Convention was first adopted (1950), signatories had different options for adherence: they could allow their citizens to approach the ECHR directly and begin an action there; they could adopt the Convention into their own law, so that actions might begin in the member states using ECHR law; or they could insist that the action could not begin until all internal avenues in the member state had been exhausted, on the basis that their own laws already adhered to the Convention. The UK (which drafted the Convention anyway) took the latter course. The result was that it took about seven years to get to the ECHR in a British case. This changed in the UK with the Human Rights Act 1998, which adopted the Convention into UK law (the second option above), thus speeding up the process considerably. (One thing that has happened since 1998 has been a string of complaints about 'Europe' interfering with UK law; yet before 1998, the line was always that UK law adhered to the Convention anyway, so people didn't need direct access.)

States joining the Council of Europe now don't get to choose how the Convention should be adhered to, but they do have to sign the Convention. The Convention does change, by the issuance of Protocols, which member states sign separately. For instance, in 1950 there was a 'get out' clause sanctioning capital punishment. Since Protocol 6 in 1983, there is not (which is why we abolished the last vestiges of it when we signed the Sixth Protocol in - rather surprisingly - 2003).

States in the the EU (27 members currently) have to have signed the Convention as well - but that is because the EU decided they should, not the Council of Europe. The EU has its own court, the Court of Justice of the European Union, at Luxembourg. It exists to decide upon disputes over EU treaty obligations, or adherence to treaty terms. It does not deal with human rights.

The recent Abu Hamza case was in the ECHR, because the argument was that his extradition to the US, where the likelihood was imprisonment for life in a federal 'supermax' prison, would breach Article 3 of the Convention. Article 3 reads: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The ECHR ruled that, in these circumstances, extradition would not breach Article 3, because (even in an American prison) confinement would not be 'inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment'. It might have been different if he faced execution (there are several judgements refusing extradition in such circumstances).

Here's the Convention: http://www.echr.coe.int/nr/rdonlyres...ishanglais.pdf

And here's an interesting piece about the UK's attempt to withdraw from Artictle 5 (the right to liberty and security) in terror-related cases: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org....arge/index.php*. Note that it failed (eventually) because the House of Lords, applying the Convention, said they couldn't withdraw human rights defined by the Convention. Of course, a cynic might say that the Government's response was to abolish the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords and to replace it with the American-style Supreme Court.

* John Mortimer's Horace Rumpole comes up against this in Rumpole and the Age of Terror. 'Kafka-esqe' is a truly suitable adjective.

[aeolium]

This idea that 'the people of Europe don't want it' is not backed by the evidence ... it simply chimes with general Eurosceptism in the UK, that's all.

I don't think that's true, but it would be very easy to test it with a Europe-wide referendum. The Greek opinion polls are rather Janus-faced in that the Greeks have recently massively cut their support for pro-bailout parties in favour of parties against the bailout terms, even though this would probably lead to an exit from the euro.

Relatively poor states like Alabama in the US are protected by the federal system, and countries like Greece would be the same in a federal Europe.

The only problem with that is that it would require really huge transfers of money from the richer to the poorer states for a considerable period of time. Is there really a willingness in the rich countries (principally Germany) to do this? The paymasters would inevitably become the masters in this scenario, dictating the terms of membership to the others, as we see to a certain extent in the bailout terms for Greece, Ireland, Portugal. This in turn creates a double resentment, the resentment of the taxpayers in the rich countries and the resentment of the recipient country at being dictated to.

There's also the question of what would be the purpose of voting for national governments at all, given that all the essential economic (and presumably foreign) policies would be determined centrally. They would be reduced to the status of a sort of large-scale local council.

It's time the British finally woke up and played a major part in the almost now inevitable creation of an United States of Europe

No, it's time European (and British) politicians woke up and started trying to create workable political and economic structures that help to improve the quality of people's lives rather than - as with the Eurozone - immiserating them.

[MrGongGong]

now I DIDN'T start it this time

I care more for the shameful way in which Gary McKinnon has been treated than for a load of delusional fantasists who think that we aren't part of Europe. This is another instance that proves that sometimes the only thing that is likely to protect us is NOT our own administration but our partners.......

[MrGongGong]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19957138

[Simon]

It's taken far too long, and indeed reflects no credit on the system, but this was odds on going to be the outcome in the end.

I've had a look back through the thread, which I missed first time around when I was away. Isn't it typical of this forum? Reasoned and moderate posts at the start, soon hijacked by surreal "political" nonsense from the usual half a dozen who have a view on everything but, apparently, little knowledge of anything.

[MrGongGong]

It's taken far too long, and indeed reflects no credit on the system, but this was odds on going to be the outcome in the end.

Having a great deal of personal and professional experience and knowledge of ASD i'm very relieved by this news. I'm still surprised though given the actions of our current government towards those with disabilities.

[Simon]

And what actions are those, that cause you such concern?

I only ask, as a disabled person local to here receives a considerable amount of valued help from, er, the government. Well, at least, from the County Council - I don't know how the money is actually funded, to be honest. Know very little about LocGov.

[Thropplenoggin]

Hurrah! Nay, huzzizzle!

[Pabmusic]

A very sensible decision. Why did it take 10 years to arrive at it?

[french frank]

"The Americans said his actions caused $800,000 (£487,000) worth of damage to military computer systems."

And this from a country whose national debt is soaring up the trillions. Pay them off and tell them to shut up.