In reply to andyfallsoff:
> Wasn't the perspective of mine, or of the human rights lawyers I know.
What do you think my perspective is?
> I'm not talking about the mechanism, I'm talking about the substance. I think that a number of specific identifiable rights are of more benefit to individuals than a situation where they have no specific individual rights.
All I said was that rights are too much a collection of differing things to be able to say simplistically that they increase or decrease. This is a different argument. Do I think that the human right to freedom from torture has had any affect on actual reality here, ie that it's stopped torture here? No. That was already illegal. Do I think it's improved our right to a fair trial? No. Freedom of speech? No. Etc. What it has done is hand over moral decisions on a huge range of issues to unelected judges, taking those decisions away from us.
> Ok, take the right to a certain amount of holiday whilst in employment. Under your theory, giving someone this right must curtail a different right they would otherwise have. However, I can't see much of an opposing right - there is the freedom of the employer to pick working relationships, but this isn't a true freedom, and is necessarily tied up with commercial power. The point of granting these kind of rights is to get away from a position where commercial power can overrule other considerations.
If the requirement is that 28 days of holiday must be given and must be taken, then it's a removal of your right to work more days should you choose. Either way, it's a removal of the employer's right to offer whatever terms they wish. What makes it not a "true" freedom? If you're an employer your rights have been curtailed. You might think that's a good thing (so do I, as it happens) but that doesn't mean there's no restriction in place.
> But you are trying to argue that it is equivalent, and that any shift in legislated rights leave people in a net equal position. Which I dispute, for the reasons given above.
I'm saying any increase in a given right is not necessarily an improvement. That any decrease in a right is not necessarily a bad thing. More than that really, that increase and decrease are fairly meaningless terms. Certainly when they're used for rights as a whole they mean nothing.
> The UK form as opposed to the EU form. Both include a right for the population to vote for elected representatives, but you very clearly have decided that one is democratic and one is not. I'd argue that both are democratic *to some extent* but each have shortfalls - the difference is you're trying to say one *is* and one *isn't*.
I'd say (and have before, don't think I have time to go into it in longer form) that the EU mechanism does not allow the populace of the EU to work together to achieve a goal, that it's not intended to do that, and that as the populace of the EU do not think or work as a group it wouldn't happen. All these things mean that it's not in reality a democracy. A few trappings, like China has with elected representatives, does not make it one. In the UK, on the other hand, we elect people who make changes. Our choices directly influence what happens with the government, and so the direction of the country. See the referendum.
> You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about this (you've mentioned it in every response) - care to explain why? I'd argue that this is a right that I want protecting, because I gain no benefit from what you describe as a "freedom of speech" right for anyone who has my information to give it to whoever they want.
You don't, others do. They lose the right to publish. It's just a clear and easy example.
> But it is relevant to the overall position. Why should rights be considered in isolation?
It's relevant, sure, but I'm not interested in going over it again. Rights is interesting.
> Because the people who have said they want to reduce EU legislation don't often say what they want to remove. That is one of the things I have the main suspicion of!
So one side waffles and the other waffles in response?
> But there are clearly democratic aspects of the EU system, and undemocratic aspects of the UK (I don't have any knowledge of Iceland so can't comment). So your decision must necessarily be a qualitative judgment based on how you weigh up those aspects. That's fine so far as it goes, yet you present it as some sort of binary line - one is in and one is out. It doesn't support your arguments above much, because drawing that as a complete black line where EU is bad and UK is good just makes you sound like you're driven by ideology not an assessment of the facts...
As above, I'd say that the EU isn't a democracy because in actual reality it does not operate as one. In the end though this is, as you say, a judgment call. I don't agree that these things are by degree though. China is not a democracy, regardless of a few trappings. Zimbabwe is the same. They're not 10% or 20% democracies, they're just not at all.
> Nothing - if you agree we've been sovereign whilst member of the EU, then great. We have a point of common ground.
We were talking about concepts. The argument there is about de facto reality vs technical law. There's no question as to the meaning of the sovereignty.
Post edited at 10:23