|
Cerebral Bore posted:Rolling in and destroying the government of a country and then installing your own is a conquest by any definition, even if it isn't intended to be permanent. Friendly Humour posted:And furthermore Mexicans aren't a race.
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:You're right. The Mexican population is a continuum from native to mixed to white, and in that regard more diverse than many other Latin American countries, where the population is generally more uniformly mixed. I was making fun of you, but if you insist on being an idiot then go ahead!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:I was making fun of you, but if you insist on being an idiot then go ahead!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Ah, I've fallen for the moron gambit. Goddamnit
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 17:15
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:I admit that I don't know that much about France and NATO, but I was under the impression that the decision to leave only came about after De Gaulle's return and that it was a massive change of course for the country. Do you have some source on that subject? First, France did not leave NATO altogether, they only withdrew from the integrated command. Secondly, the main reason for leaving integrated command was sovereignty and independence: it coincided with the development of French nuclear deterrence, and this deterrent had to remain 100% under French control. A Buttery Pastry posted:That's hardly conquest. It's called "forced vassalization" in Europa Universalis, and "puppet city" in Civilization. In both cases you can just annex it afterwards if you feel like it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:It's called "forced vassalization" in Europa Universalis, and "puppet city" in Civilization. In both cases you can just annex it afterwards if you feel like it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIYq5xMW98I Really missed opportunity to show the doctor shoot the patient that leaves the queue in the head there, as is standardised EU practice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
Did she get cured by a chest Xray?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIYq5xMW98I Good to see that this monumental decision in UK history is not being guided by outright lies. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIYq5xMW98I
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:That's hardly conquest. By your definition France wasn't conquered by WW2 either because it was only ~temporary~. Kicking in the door, shooting HOO-HA, killing everyone in the room, smashing what is left and then declaring MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, staying for years is very much conquest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Good to see that this monumental decision in UK history is not being guided by outright lies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIYq5xMW98I That makes leaving the EU look like a good idea
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:It's an election, are you expecting the truth to show up for one of those? I would hope that while they'd skew the facts they wouldn't just straight up make poo poo up. Stuff like this is why referendums should never be a thing. It's like a regular election, only waaaaay worse in every way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
The referendum isn't legally binding to my knowledge, so if it's close I'm wondering if the government will just ignore it. Because Leave is hardly going to be advantageous for them, especially if it doesn't even have much of a popular mandate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Okay, according to the literal definition you're right. It's a very different sort of conquest from annexing territory and adding it to your state though, which is what the Russians are doing. No, it's according to every commonly used definition in the context of military conquest. There's nothing in the concept of conquest that necessitates permanent annexation, and I've really got no clue why you're twisting the term in this way. Cat Mattress posted:First, France did not leave NATO altogether, they only withdrew from the integrated command. If we're brutally honest the main reason was the de Gaulle wanted to feel like one of the big boys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:But applicable human rights are a council of Europe product not eu 😱 Technically EU membership amplifies the effect of the ECHR since the Lisbon treaty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:No, it's according to every commonly used definition in the context of military conquest. There's nothing in the concept of conquest that necessitates permanent annexation, and I've really got no clue why you're twisting the term in this way. *The original distinction being between Russia taking territory from Georgia and adding to the Russian state, and the US invading and occupying Iraq and then getting kicked out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The referendum isn't legally binding to my knowledge, so if it's close I'm wondering if the government will just ignore it. You're forgetting why the vote is happening in the first place. It was a gamble by Cameron to pacify the nationalist part of the Tories and to not lose seats to UKIP in the last election. If the vote actually turns 'leave' and he decides to ignore it the next election is going to be very interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Randler posted:Technically EU membership amplifies the effect of the ECHR since the Lisbon treaty. link
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Article 6 para 3 TEU
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Randler posted:Article 6 para 3 TEU hm true, but udner the same technical reasoning, do you believe this adds anything seeing as how britain is signatory to the echr alreayd
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:You're forgetting why the vote is happening in the first place. It was a gamble by Cameron to pacify the nationalist part of the Tories and to not lose seats to UKIP in the last election. If the vote actually turns 'leave' and he decides to ignore it the next election is going to be very interesting. The next election is going to be very interesting anyway given that HM Government officially supports remain so if the vote comes up leave that's discrediting the government, and Cameron already has open rebellion on the subject among half his cabinet. As he personally is supposed to be stepping down anyway before the next election and there's no clear successor except loving George Osborne and nobody of any particular political talent among the cabinet, the next election is already looking to be anybody's guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIYq5xMW98I No wonder the NHS is at its breaking point when people just drag grandma to the ER at the slightest sign of a caugh. Have some decency and go to your GP, grandma.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:No wonder the NHS is at its breaking point when people just drag grandma to the ER at the slightest sign of a caugh. Have some decency and go to your GP, grandma. I was wondering that, you're not supposed to go to the doctor with cold symptoms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:28
|
|
YF-23 posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIYq5xMW98I I like how it only takes an breathing mask to magically heal the patient if the UK leaves the EU.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Again confirming the suspicion that she went to A and E with a cold. A lie down on a bed seemed to greatly improve her condition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:No wonder the NHS is at its breaking point when people just drag grandma to the ER at the slightest sign of a caugh. Have some decency and go to your GP, grandma. She's very old, and you don't know her medical history
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:But applicable human rights are a council of Europe product not eu 😱 The current UK home secretary supports staying in the EU but wants to withdraw from the ECHR 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:hm true, but udner the same technical reasoning, do you believe this adds anything seeing as how britain is signatory to the echr alreayd EU primary law beats national law. ECHR only trumps national law if the country in question says their implementation trumps other national law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Randler posted:EU primary law beats national law. ECHR only trumps national law if the country in question says their implementation trumps other national law. That's not exactly true. Both are international law according to British legal tradition and thus both are only applicable (according to the UK) insofar as national law implements it. Both were (via the European Communities Act or Human Rights Act) and both can be cancelled. It's just that the European Court of Justice is a bit more cavalier in reasserting the primacy of EU law, but it's not like its status is any different from the ECHR's. EDIT: and both will cause the liability of the UK in international law if it decides to tell the Council of Europe or the EU to sod off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Indeed for the Netherlands they share applicability under the Constitution (monist system)
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:EDIT: and both will cause the liability of the UK in international law if it decides to tell the Council of Europe or the EU to sod off. Are you telling me that if I vote leave I might be able to get the EU to hang Tony Blair?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Are you telling me that if I vote leave I might be able to get the EU to hang Tony Blair? Now there's a campaign ad that would sell people on leave.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:That's not exactly true. Both are international law according to British legal tradition and thus both are only applicable (according to the UK) insofar as national law implements it. Both were (via the European Communities Act or Human Rights Act) and both can be cancelled. It's just that the European Court of Justice is a bit more cavalier in reasserting the primacy of EU law, but it's not like its status is any different from the ECHR's. Any member of the EU has treaty obligation to implement its decisions, while there is no such obligation for other organisations, is the difference. Naturally the implementation is in the purview of national governments, but lack of compliance with the intergovernmental agenda is a violation of international law. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Any member of the EU has treaty obligation to implement its decisions, while there is no such obligation for other organisations, is the difference. Naturally the implementation is in the purview of national governments, but lack of compliance with the intergovernmental agenda is a violation of international law. That's essentially what I meant, yes. Although article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights establishes a similar binding force on the UK as the European Treaties do. Theoretically, Parliamentary Sovereignty means the UK could repeal the Human Rights Act or the European Communities Act and that'd be fine according to British legal tradition, although obviously the international institutions would be rather displeased and the UK would have a lot of explaining to do on the international legal level. I've read legal theory claiming that these acts are so important to British law that they are "entrenched" and can't be implicitly repealed and yadda yadda, but British courts have never ruled anything like that. The consensus, from my limited experience, seems to be that EU law is only directly applicable because the UK wills it via the European Communities Act. (Which the ECJ disputes, obviously, reaffirming its primacy ad nauseam.) But, If Parliament decides to repeal either of those acts, then the situation is identical: valid in the UK legal setting, a violation of its international obligations. The important caveat is that the EU Treaties explicitly mention the ECHR. So the theoretical wish of leaving the Council of Europe so you can ship your indesirables off to war zones or curtail the voting rights of every prisoner will still be blocked by the EU, though the inverse is not necessarily true. The UK could leave the EU but remain part of the Council of Europe, but in this hypothesis they'll still be rattling their sabers at Strasbourg's Human Rights court. As the Dutchman above mentioned, a lot of this is in the eye of the beholder. Monistic traditions like Belgium, France, the Netherlands... are a lot more accepting of just applying international law and seeing it as a natural extension of their national law systems. Dualistic countries like the UK consider a strict line to separate the national form the international sphere, and EU law is applicable nationally only by the grace of them allowing it to. The difference is mostly academical anyway, as I mentioned before, the European Communities Act pretty much serves as a funnel for EU law to apply directly in the UK. If you're interested I can dig up some case law on the subject from when I was writing on that Tory proposal from some time ago to scrap the Human Rights Act. From the point of view of a 
Deltasquid fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I think he's referring to the fact that Russia have been sneakily moving the barbed wire border of South Ossetia further and further into Georgia during the nights. Which is hilarious, but obviously not fair. Holy poo poo.  I have a LITTLE sympathy for Georgia in the brawl, insofar as Russia was playing a really annoying game of Not Touching You in Ossetia and Saakashvili eventually got tired of it and made a really dumb decision.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:That's essentially what I meant, yes. Although article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights establishes a similar binding force on the UK as the European Treaties do. Add me to your buddy list
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 09:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:51 |
|
|
Deltasquid posted:That's not exactly true. Both are international law according to British legal tradition and thus both are only applicable (according to the UK) insofar as national law implements it. Both were (via the European Communities Act or Human Rights Act) and both can be cancelled. It's just that the European Court of Justice is a bit more cavalier in reasserting the primacy of EU law, but it's not like its status is any different from the ECHR's. I was basing my post on the view of the European Union not how England considers those respective treaties to translate in domestica practise. Also, just to so we're on the same page, my comment about European Law trumping national law was in regards to the primary EU law (i.e. the treaties themselves) and not secondary EU law like directives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2016 18:17
|
|