Another power grab

That sounds fun!
It is watching them all queue up to take pots shots all the while not being up to speed.
The reform party doesn't agree nett zero but they might argue they're still protecting their citizens under the ruling with their policies.
The fly in the ointment might be a party wins an election on the ticket of not believing in climate change, would they be able to rule. Does this affect democracy when an outside body can outlaw a part because it goes against their ruling.
I'm sure your aware of the WHO being handed more powers handed over by various governments.
I see it as a slippery slope whilst others on here can't get enough of it.
 
The reform party doesn't agree nett zero but they might argue they're still protecting their citizens under the ruling with their policies
its fossil fuel donors dont believe in net zero either
 
Having don a bit of reading on this, I wonder how the f** a government is meant to protect its citizens from climate change in the way described by the court?

It is the planet that is warming and Switzerland cannot stop that.
 
The fly in the ointment might be a party wins an election on the ticket of not believing in climate change, would they be able to rule. Does this affect democracy when an outside body can outlaw a part because it goes against their ruling.

In principle, that's no different then to any other policy which goes against a ruling of the ECHR. What I found particularly interesting about this ruling, was that part of it was based on the fact that Switzerland has signed up to the Paris Agreement, but was not really taking any steps to meet the targets. Which raises the question, if Switzerland abandoned the Paris Agreement, would the ECHR still rule against them in the same situation?

Also, isn't there some mechanism to disapply the ECHR in certain areas?
 
I'm sure your aware of the WHO being handed more powers handed over by various governments

I wasn't, but I've just read that some greater role in the case of pandemics is being proposed for the WHO. Is that what you mean? I think, though, their recommendations would be non-binding.
 
Of course they would, who do think would stop them?
The ECHR otherwise they would not be adhering to their legislation and so would have to withdraw from being a member with all that would involve amongst the international community.
A bit like Rishi threatening to lea ve over the migrant crisis which he has no intention of doing, another example of a governments having their hands tied by lawyers and not the democratic wishes of the electorate.
 
I wasn't, but I've just read that some greater role in the case of pandemics is being proposed for the WHO. Is that what you mean? I think, though, their recommendations would be non-binding.
Yes, how well would that go down if all the other the countries adhered to the rules, this is the drip drip of blackmail and these world powers grabbing ever more power for themselves.
 
The ECHR otherwise
They would stop an elected Government from governing in the UK? Send in their army?

Your left the tinfoil conspiracy plane and reached a new level, whatever that is...
 
What part of throw them out of the 'club' can you not get your head round.
 
What part of throw them out of the 'club' can you not get your head round.
You claimed they could make it illegal for winners of an election to form a government. You're nuts...
 
He'll put out a bullshīt comment, then spend several pages avoiding explaining, whilst at the same time calling everyone else thick, for not understanding his bizarre hallucinations.
Yes

But I will let you find out for yourself
 
And they are fully fit and jumping about in the hot sun ?
No they are taking it as easy as they can trying not to get too hot unlike in the winter trying desperately not to die from hyperthermia whilst trying to keep warm huddled up next to a 1 bar heater dreading the next electric bill fearing to venture out lest they slip on frost or ice and break their hip.
 
Back
Top