9 gli stati dell’UE richiedono “nuova conversazione aperta” sulla Convenzione europea sui diritti umani
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/9-eu-states-demand-new-open-minded-conversation-on-european-convention-on-human-rights/3577646
di BasedSweet
9 gli stati dell’UE richiedono “nuova conversazione aperta” sulla Convenzione europea sui diritti umani
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/9-eu-states-demand-new-open-minded-conversation-on-european-convention-on-human-rights/3577646
di BasedSweet
8 commenti
[deleted]
> particularly in terms of migration
And of course it is about immigration again.
Each time I hear geezers ranting about it, I am thinking what percentage of my pay they will have me give up so they can enjoy their pension when they retire. Aging population, low natality, and they want to add low immigration to be sure to burry the european economy.
“Open minded” or you mean “Can we be a fascist? Just a little bit, not too much. Okay?”
Mette Frederiksen is EU’s answer to Keir Starmer. Calls herself a leftist but has slowly morphed into a right-winger. She has done nothing for the Danish working class. She talks about labour rights and then raised retirement age to 70. All these anti-immigrant postures are a smokescreen to the collapsing middle class in Europe.
Talking about (civil-) rights within a group of people for people who are outside this group?…
You know, it’s funny that with the exception of Italy, most of the countries signing this are also the countries that on average receive less of an influx of immigration.
Why are the people less affected by immigration always the ones complaining more loudly about it?
How many countries who signed ECHR are needed in order for ECHR to reinterpret particular human right to align with ‘broad consensus’?
Edit: ok I just asked GPT because I’m lazy, this is what it said:
Generally, the ECtHR tends to see a broad consensus when at least two-thirds (or more) of the 46 CoE member states (as of 2025) adopt similar legal standards or practices. This would suggest around 30–35 countries or more moving in the same direction, although this is not a hard rule.
If 40+ states align on a policy, the consensus is usually seen as strong and likely to guide the Court.
If only 25–30 states agree, the Court may consider it an emerging or developing consensus, which still holds weight but may not compel reinterpretation.
If less than half align, the Court often allows a wide margin of appreciation, giving individual states more freedom.
We have to keep importing and spending money on these people. To suggest anything else is insert whatever buzzword you want to use.
Right now it is a conversation between “all in” and “all out” as much as I can see. And the funny thing is that this idea comes from the US. They allways had idiotic laws on immigration (because they are the land of immigrants) and decided that it is much funnier to argue about “all in” and “all out” rather than fixing existing laws in accordance to modern times.