Not enough climate action a crime against humanity?

@divegeester said
So I’m not quite the “moron” then as I was going on what you posted.

Anyway; the UK won’t take any notice or action and won’t have to.

Neither does the rest of the world. The EU apparently think they own the world. Down here we ignore all these environmental extremists like the plague.

@divegeester said
So I’m not quite the “moron” then as I was going on what you posted.

Anyway; the UK won’t take any notice or action and won’t have to.

Yes. Yes it will.
The court’s decision is binding.

Which means that if a similar case is brought to a lower UK court, they will follow the over-riding rule laid down.

Read it and weep.

@rajk999 said
Neither does the rest of the world. The EU apparently think they own the world. Down here we ignore all these environmental extremists like the plague.

Uhuh.

You really don’t understand anything, do you?

@shavixmir said
Yes. Yes it will.
The court’s decision is binding.

Which means that if a similar case is brought to a lower UK court, they will follow the over-riding rule laid down.

Read it and weep.

Well let’s wait and see shall we.

Let’s first watch as the Swiss ignore it and tell the “EU” to fuk off.
Then let’s watch as every other EU country finds it yet another reason to leave the undemocratic gravy train that is the EU.
Then we can watch everyone else ignore this ruling.

@divegeester said
Well let’s wait and see shall we.

Let’s first watch as the Swiss ignore it and tell the “EU” to fuk off.
Then let’s watch as every other EU country finds it yet another reason to leave the undemocratic gravy train that is the EU.
Then we can watch everyone else ignore this ruling.

How many times do you have to be told: this has nothing to do with the EU.

It’s the council of Europe.

And you have to comprehend that its findings are binding. It’s the higher court on specific issues.

And that’s why this decision is interesting. Because it’s a judgement on countries signing up to treaties and not doing enough to adhere to the treaties to an extent that it interferes with basic human rights.

Basically meaning, if a country doesn’t want to be bound by the judgement, it has to step out of said treaties on environmental issues and aims to reduce global warming.

But that is where it gets rather sticky. Despite what the extreme right-wing fantasists want people to believe, global warming and the human component are really a thing.
And every country agrees with the science and, to various extents, measures to counter-act the situation.

So, see, it’s all cool to debate issues like global warming on an arm chair general’s level like a chess forum, where people from different walks of life regurgitate the bubbles they are living in, in real life governments have to act on information and science they actually have.

So, to put Brexit into perspective for you: it didn’t remove the UK from the European council or its courts. It didn’t remove the UK from the major treaty on refugees (which is UN) and it didn’t leave the European Convention on Human Rights.

@shavixmir said
How many times do you have to be told: this has nothing to do with the EU.

You said that this ruling would be “binding on EU counties”.

You said that, not me.

@shavixmir said

What the court decides is binding for countries in the EU.

Here…

@divegeester said
You said that this ruling would be “binding on EU counties”.

You said that, not me.

It is. But it’s also binding in various non-EU countries.

They Speak English in England
That doesn’t mean they don’t speak it elsewhere.

@shavixmir said

But that is where it gets rather sticky. Despite what the extreme right-wing fantasists want people to believe, global warming and the human component are really a thing.

It (my issue) is not about “extreme right wing fantasists”, I’m not one. It’s about political independence. A country might sign up to a treaty but nowhere in that treaty will it state “if we don’t hit our targets we can be brought to court”. It’s a complete farce and there will be calls to leave the treaty, leave the EC. They’ve shot themselves in the foot.

PS spelt “shot” incorrectly and automod slapped me!

@divegeester said
It’s (my issue) is not about “extreme right wing fantasists”, I’m not one. It’s about political independence. A country might sign up to a treaty but nowhere in that treaty will it state “if we don’t hit our targets we can be brought to court”. It’s a complete farce and there will be calls to leave the treaty, leave the EC. They’ve shot themselves in the foot.

PS spelt “shot” incorrectly and automod slapped me!

Haha (to the misspelling slap down by the bots).

No. See. This is a misconception. A treaty is international law, and it overrides national law (because you have to adhere to agreements that extend beyond your zone of control).

The UN charter on human rights is not a treaty = it’s a charter = goals and aims to aspire to.
The European convention on human rights (which is based on the charter) is a treaty; convention = treaty = overrides national law.

The European court didn’t judge on targets being met, but on the actions being taken to reach said targets. And found it wanting.

I hardly think there will be serious calls to leave the Council of Europe.