Uk And The Echr

[Hymie]

According to the Daily Express, if the ECHR intercedes in his plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda (the UK breaking international law), we will join Russia and Belarus as countries whose citizens do not enjoy protections given to citizens under the ECHR.

 

It’s not just Johnny Foreigner (who is in the UK) who will lose these rights, but every UK citizen.

Never let it be said that the Tories want the plebs to have rights.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1884604/Rishi-Sunak-warns-echr-UK-will-quit

[New Judge]

"...we will join Russia and Belarus as countries whose citizens do not enjoy protections given to citizens under the ECHR."

You might have expanded on that a little to give an accurate picture. There are 195 sovereign nations (including Palestine and the Vatican City). There are currently 46 signatories to the ECHR. So if the UK left it would not only join Russia and Belarus; it would join 147 other nations which do not see fit to join the ECHR. These include such well known hotbeds of oppressive governments such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan and many others who see no need to sacrifice the protection of the rights of their citizens to a foreign power. 

"According to the Daily Express, if the ECHR intercedes in his plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda (the UK breaking international law)"…..

There is no such thing as "international law." The ECHR, the United Nations and other similar institutions are international treaties which individual nations are free to belong to (in which case they should abide by their provisions) or leave, as they think fit.

There are no fundamental rights provided by the ECHR which are not provided for in UK law. Our own 1998 Human Rights Act largely mirrors the ECHR. So I don't know why you crave the protection of a foreign court. Perhaps as well as the Tories being out to get you, the UK's judiciary is as well. Who knows?

That said, there is more chance of me winning the London Marathon than there is of this or any other UK government quitting the ECHR. Mr Sunak is all mouth and short trousers. If for no other reason, the Good Friday Agreement is inextricably linked to the ECHR. In particular, it says:

“The British government will complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights, with direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention, including power for the courts to overrule Assembly legislation on the grounds of inconsistency.”

This basically says that the UK government does not have final oversight of legislation framed in NI. The GF agreement surreptitiously stole that responsibility from the UK government and left it to a foreign Court. No government will interfere with the GF agreement (more’s the pity) so you have no need to worry about your fundamental rights and freedoms which you believe the UK cannot provide from being snatched away from you.

[Hymie]

At least I’m posting on here trying to protect/defend our rights, while most ABers have swallowed the right-wing propaganda that these rights (which we all currently enjoy) are only helping Johnny Foreigner game the system.

[New Judge]

"...while most ABers have swallowed the right-wing propaganda that these rights (which we all currently enjoy) are only helping Johnny Foreigner game the system."

That's not the case at all (at least not from my viewpoint). These rights which we all currently enjoy are embodied in the UK's 1998 HRA. The "rights" that you are really talking about is the right to have your grievance determined by a foreign court instead of the final arbiters being in the UK.

There is no doubt that the HRA and the ECHR are both so nebulous in their construction that proper case law derived from them (i.e. "precedents" determined by judges) upon which much of UK law depends is virtually impossible. 

Purely out of interest, can you tell me any rights which the ECHR provides which are not provided under UK law? Or is it that you prefer the wider interpretation that foreign judges are more likely to place on the legislation. Essemtially is it that not only do you trust the UK government, but you don't trust the UK's judiciary either?

[naomi24]

Peter Pedant, the term 'Aryan Bank' is highly offensive so please don't use it.   Repeated offence will result in suspension.

[Old_Geezer]

Any agreement, such as the GF agreement for example, that refers to something outside of it, such as membership of ECHR for example, or indeed any external control over this country's laws, and which no longer is valid in the UK, prehaps due to withdrawal, can be revisited to repair the lack of foresight when it was drawn up. Nothing can bind a nation forever.

[Peter Pedant]

Hi Naomi - now WHO was it who said that there is no room for robust debate on AB - let me think...

X-bank was allowed once along with EUSSR ( highly offensive to some) but hey how things change for the better !

 

[naomi24]

Peter Pedant, insults to not equate to robust debate.  No further discussion will be entered into.  

[naomi24]

Peter Pedant, we cross posted.  If you want to be suspended right now carry on.

[Peter Pedant]

I regard comments that say a judge has opined that the principles of the Human Rights Acts is now embedded in the common law WAS a contribution to the debate.

Perhaps some moderators did nt understand -  sozza

[Untitled]

"These rights which we all currently enjoy are embodied in the UK's 1998 HRA."

it has been a while since i looked into it but my understanding was that the HRA simply allows the european convention on human rights to be enforced by UK courts rather than on appeal in strasbourg... could the 1998 HRA even function at all if we were not members of the ECHR?

[fender62]

half baked *** law treaty agreement whatever, criminals charter and a money making back stabbing tax payer funded folly...that i was never asked about or agreed to, oh blair...