Y
Yellow_Belle
Guest
The EU doesn’t encompass ‘almost all European countries’.My bad. Not pan-European. Just encompassing almost all European countries.
The EU doesn’t encompass ‘almost all European countries’.My bad. Not pan-European. Just encompassing almost all European countries.
Except for most of the Balkans, a decent chunk of Eastern Europe, Switzerland, the Vatican, Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, Norway, Iceland.My bad. Not pan-European. Just encompassing almost all European countries.
27 EU members out of 50 sovereign states, to be precise.Except for most of the Balkans, a decent chunk of Eastern Europe, Switzerland, the Vatican, Monaco, Andorra, San Marino, Norway, Iceland.
Yeah…almost all of them.![]()
That is the reason. (Money) The brief tech boom in Ireland broadened the wealth base considerably, allowing women to travel more.Actually, the number of Irish women travelling to the UK has been in decline for a number of years now, though the reason why is not clear…
cinews.ie/article.php?artid=3648
One suspects that, with the country currently in deep recession, those numbers may begin to rise again.
The bolded part is not true, and the European Court of Human Rights has not proposed any changes to the law.The European Court of Human Rights has announced a controversial ruling that will force abortion on Ireland. The court has binding powers over the Irish Government, which will now have to legislate to allow abortion under certain circumstances.
To read more visit: sconews.co.uk/news/europe-to-force-abortion-on-ireland/
Sorry, that makes no sense…That is the reason. (Money) The brief tech boom in Ireland broadened the wealth base considerably, allowing women to travel more.
In fairness, Rich, the poster who began the hand gun interlude is from the UK not the US…What was the point of trying to turn this thread into one about allowing an American to carry a handgun in Ireland?
Is there NO topic that American conservatives don’t try to make into a 2nd Amendment issue?![]()
No disrespect intended, but how does murdering an unborn child have anything to do with freedom? Liberty involves responsibility. That is what distinguishes it from chaos.Well, it is good to see the ECHR tackle such pressing subjects. I mean, if Irish women don’t have any access to abortion, is any European free?
As I said earlier, the ECHR has, in the past, decided that abortion is a matter for the individual States (unlike the position in the US). This decision is fairly typical of the process where citizens go to the ECHR as the final Court of Appeal in cases where a Government has failed, or may have failed, to apply their own laws.Well, it is good to see the ECHR tackle such pressing subjects. I mean, if Irish women don’t have any access to abortion, is any European free?
Kaninchen, I think you’ll have to put this on a mental ‘macro’ as well…As I said earlier, the ECHR has, in the past, decided that abortion is a matter for the individual States (unlike the position in the US). This decision is fairly typical of the process where citizens go to the ECHR as the final Court of Appeal in cases where a Government has failed, or may have failed, to apply their own laws.
Freedom under the law implies the ‘Rule of Law’, that Governments observe their own laws. If their legislation is faulty, or they change their minds, then they should seek to change the law not choose to ignore it when it suits them or appears inconvenient.
Right after I’ve thought through the argument for disbanding the pan-Continental United States.Kaninchen, I think you’ll have to put this on a mental ‘macro’ as well…![]()
However, might a cynic speculate that the ECHR was selective in picking which laws to adjudicate? Maybe it’s just an American thing, but doesn’t every country have a whole host of laws that rarely or never go enforced for a variety of reasons? I think I once heard a someone (not necessarily a reliable source) say that it was technically legal to shoot a Welshman with a crossbow after midnight in some county in Britain. I’m sure, if one wanted to, one could find many inconsistencies in the Irish (or any) law code; why bother with this one?As I said earlier, the ECHR has, in the past, decided that abortion is a matter for the individual States (unlike the position in the US). This decision is fairly typical of the process where citizens go to the ECHR as the final Court of Appeal in cases where a Government has failed, or may have failed, to apply their own laws.
Freedom under the law implies the ‘Rule of Law’, that Governments observe their own laws. If their legislation is faulty, or they change their minds, then they should seek to change the law not choose to ignore it when it suits them or appears inconvenient.
No country has been forced to sign the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court decides on cases that are brought before it, it doesn’t trawl through the mass of laws in Europe looking for things to decide on.However, might a cynic speculate that the ECHR was selective in picking which laws to adjudicate? Maybe it’s just an American thing, but doesn’t every country have a whole host of laws that rarely or never go enforced for a variety of reasons? I think I once heard a someone (not necessarily a reliable source) say that it was technically legal to shoot a Welshman with a crossbow after midnight in some county in Britain. I’m sure, if one wanted to, one could find many inconsistencies in the Irish (or any) law code; why bother with this one?
Perhaps I’m just overly cynical or paranoid. It’s a habit of mine, however, to be skeptical toward international bodies intervening in domestic affairs for any reason, excepting extreme cases like policies of genocide or enslavement.
The ECHR didn’t just suddenly decide to adjudicate on this: it had three cases in connection with that law before it. And, surprisingly enough, it is actually the function of the ECHR to adjudicate on cases before it.However, might a cynic speculate that the ECHR was selective in picking which laws to adjudicate? Maybe it’s just an American thing, but doesn’t every country have a whole host of laws that rarely or never go enforced for a variety of reasons? I think I once heard a someone (not necessarily a reliable source) say that it was technically legal to shoot a Welshman with a crossbow after midnight in some county in Britain. I’m sure, if one wanted to, one could find many inconsistencies in the Irish (or any) law code; why bother with this one?
Perhaps I’m just overly cynical or paranoid. It’s a habit of mine, however, to be skeptical toward international bodies intervening in domestic affairs for any reason, excepting extreme cases like policies of genocide or enslavement.
Right after I’ve thought through the argument for disbanding the pan-Continental United States.![]()
Actually, the number of Irish women travelling to the UK has been in decline for a number of years now, though the reason why is not clear…
cinews.ie/article.php?artid=3648
One suspects that, with the country currently in deep recession, those numbers may begin to rise again.
That is the reason. (Money) The brief tech boom in Ireland broadened the wealth base considerably, allowing women to travel more.
I guess I read you incorrectly. Some sources have acknowledged that a spike in the country’s wealth (until recently) allowed Irish women much more freedom to travel than previously. It seems that you are saying that you believe that recession will encourage abortions (which in most cases still require travel, right?)? Apparently I misunderstood and thought that you were in agreement with other opinions Sorry about that.Sorry, that makes no sense…![]()
No, it doesn’t, because that was never my point.It “doesn’t make sense” that the drop in wealth, which you yourself acknowledged, would restrict freedom (funds) to travel? You’re the one that brought it up!
(As have other sources, by the way.)