(April 25, 2016 at 2:21 pm)Napoléon Wrote:(April 24, 2016 at 2:46 pm)Emjay Wrote: No, not exactly but I do see it as a safeguard against rash and fickle decision-making about policy, stopping the likes of the BNP and UKIP from getting their (right wing) way over issues that happen to grab the public imagination for a short time. Basically I see public opinion here as very volatile, and I think having a kind of 'federal' law stops us acting in the heat of the moment without thinking things through and stops right wing parties getting a foothold.
If we were out of it and they replaced the Human Rights Act with the proposed Bill of Rights what's the catch? It's presumably to remove something from it and if that's the case, what's to stop it happening again... and again... digging away at it little by little... till it barely resembles a list of rights at all? All at the whim of the current leadership and the current popular mood whoever and whatever they may be.
Oh great. Let's lump UKIP and the BNP together. I thought that one had gone out of fashion since the last election but evidently I'm wrong. There really are still people out there who do this. Makes it hard to take anything else you say seriously.
In that case, don't take anything I say seriously... not like you have been anyway. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, just giving my reasons for the vote I'll be making... you asked for opinions after all and that's mine.
