The ECHR - should we LEAVE?

[Thomas]

In a crisis action must be taken fast.
Spending endless years arguing the law is counter productive in the extreme.
That is an example of bad law only.

I recognise there are dangers to operating in this way. But the obvious dangers of not doing so in a crisis are far, far greater.
The country needs to be fleet of foot not stuck in a quagmire of legalisitic opportunism.
It's one of the advantages of not having a written constitution that we are able to change laws fast. Flexibility = survivability.

interesting to see as well how the ending of the ECHR  , which is entwined in the GFA , causes even more issues in northern ireland.

Human Rights and the Good Friday Agreement
The GFA gives express recognition to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)— an international treaty under the auspices of the Council of Europe and separate to the European Union (EU). UK membership of the Council of Europe therefore is not prima facie affected by Brexit. That stated, while sources of EU human rights law such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR) are not expressly mentioned, the GFA assumes that both parts of Ireland would remain in the EU.

The GFA requires 'equivalence' between the human rights protection in both jurisdictions on the island of Ireland. Both Ireland and the UK have thus incorporated the ECHR into domestic law through the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 and the Human Rights Act 1998(HRA) respectively. Equivalence does not mean 'identical', however, as the ECHR permits variations in rights protection from country to country so long as states stay within their 'margin of appreciation'.

There are already quite marked distinctions in human rights protection north and south of the border; notably, marriage equality, and abortion rights too in the near future. The principle of equivalence in the GFA is further complemented by the principle of 'non-diminution': that rights protection in both jurisdictions may progress but not regress. Under the terms of the GFA, Brexit therefore needs to be delivered in a way that ensures an equivalence of rights protection north and south and without resulting in a diminution of rights.

https://www.europeanfutures.ed.ac.uk/brexit-and-human-rights-in-northern-ireland/

[Thomas]

In a crisis action must be taken fast.
Spending endless years arguing the law is counter productive in the extreme.
That is an example of bad law only.

I recognise there are dangers to operating in this way. But the obvious dangers of not doing so in a crisis are far, far greater.
The country needs to be fleet of foot not stuck in a quagmire of legalisitic opportunism.
It's one of the advantages of not having a written constitution that we are able to change laws fast. Flexibility = survivability.

not sure i agree with that baffy boy. Bad legislation made up quickly on the hoof normally results in problems down the line as patel finds out time and again.

I want to make the point though , this tendency to blame foreign courts and lawmakers when things go wrong does no one any favours.

I dont know how corrupt or self serving foregn courts like the ECHR and of course , ECJ really are. They can't though be worse than the courts in both scotland and england/wales , both seperate legal jurisdictions of course.

I was reading only yesterday about the defamation case between cadwalladr and aaron banks , and it turns out the dodgy english judge who made the judgement where she agree cadwalladr lied , but didnt award banks damages , was of course married to a former arch remain lib dem candidate  , and she just happened to not rule in banks favour.

Scottish courts as we have seen in recent years have similarly been brought into disrepute.

So before we/you start taking the uk/England/ R uk out of these foreign courts with crys of ending their jurisdiction , perhaps we should be looking more closely at our courts at home in our various countries.

[patman post]

Isn't one sentence a bit short to classify as a homily...?

[Thomas]

To paraphrase Santayana: those who do not know history (or will fully ignore it) are doomed to repeat it. And judging from public comments — and pronouncements by various politicians — that has never been more true...

You will forgive me if i have a rather large chuckle after reading that homilie reagrding santayanas wise words on history after our "historical" conversations in the past on this very forum.

You , a guy who once stuttered to me about "british history " , and raked about trying desperately to tell us what a briton actually was  , in historical terms , now lecturing the forum on those who do not know their history is laughable.

To be fair to you , just about anyway , i do agree regarding the ECHR and european history. If not a lot else.

[patman post]

Everyone who has the law invoked against them is entitled to legal representation. 

The current trend of blaming judges and lawyers when politics leads the country's law enforcers astray is worrying — looks like the government is softening up the electorate for agreement to radically alter the role of the independent role of the judiciary...

[Baff]

I think from memory the echr was first talked about during the second world war , before the uk and others set it up afterwards , to stop any european nation dehumanising its citizens ever again.

If the uk , or England/Ruk were to leave it  , i think it really would be a new low in your countries history.

The blame for the rwanda debacle shouldnt go to the ECHR or daft lefty lwayers , it should fall fair and square behind clowns like patel and her advisors for not having a legally watertight case to send illegals to rwanda. This is a woman who has the whole organs and finances of a state behind her  but still can't make a watertight case.

In a crisis action must be taken fast.
Spending endless years arguing the law is counter productive in the extreme.
That is an example of bad law only.

I recognise there are dangers to operating in this way. But the obvious dangers of not doing so in a crisis are far, far greater.
The country needs to be fleet of foot not stuck in a quagmire of legalisitic opportunism.
It's one of the advantages of not having a written constitution that we are able to change laws fast. Flexibility = survivability.

[patman post]

The Council of Europe and ECHR, and European Coal and Steel Community and EEC and EU were all attempts after WWII to stop Europe ever again ripping itself apart and spawning pockets of barbarity that resulted in millions of deaths and massive migrations as millions of the living from devastated countries sought safety.

Any new reader of the Mail or the Telegraph today would never guess that such upheavals and efforts to prevent their reoccurrence had ever happened.

To paraphrase Santayana: those who do not know history (or will fully ignore it) are doomed to repeat it. And judging from public comments — and pronouncements by various politicians — that has never been more true...

[Thomas]

OR is is the European Court of Human Rights whose convention Britain signed up to long before the EEC existed and to escape the clutches of which we need to depart the Council of Europe and become a rogue state (which I am fine with)

I think from memory the echr was first talked about during the second world war , before the uk and others set it up afterwards , to stop any european nation dehumanising its citizens ever again.

If the uk , or England/Ruk were to leave it  , i think it really would be a new low in your countries history.

The blame for the rwanda debacle shouldnt go to the ECHR or daft lefty lwayers , it should fall fair and square behind clowns like patel and her advisors for not having a legally watertight case to send illegals to rwanda. This is a woman who has the whole organs and finances of a state behind her  but still can't make a watertight case.

[Thomas]

As I have repeatedly pointed out, it was still available for certain crimes until 1999 but when one such crime, arson in her majesty's dockyards by an citizen of a foreign power hostile to the country, was committed right in front of me in 1988, and absolutely NO action taken whatsoever, I knew then what a shithole the country had become.

Blair however went to extraordinary lengths in 1999, as explained in the editorial pages of the Times in mid  June that year, abusing Prime Ministerial Perogative and Secondary Legislation that needed no vote, to place it beyond retrieval into our statute books by signing up certain protocols.

I cant stand blair and new labour as you well know john , but blaming him for the end of the death penalty is beyond reason even in my book.

[Thomas]

The ECHR, JoG. It was T00ts who posted a copy/paste about a Google search which showed that there was confusion.
It was a common confusion for some leading up to the Brexit vote, too. I'm sure a lot of people out there will be surprised we are still subject to and a member of the ECHR after leaving the EU.

Im surprised it still is a common confusion after all the brexit debates post 2015 onwards.

[johnofgwent]

The death penalty was effectively abolished in 1965 when Blair was about 12. 

As I have repeatedly pointed out, it was still available for certain crimes until 1999 but when one such crime, arson in her majesty's dockyards by an citizen of a foreign power hostile to the country, was committed right in front of me in 1988, and absolutely NO action taken whatsoever, I knew then what a shithole the country had become.

Blair however went to extraordinary lengths in 1999, as explained in the editorial pages of the Times in mid  June that year, abusing Prime Ministerial Perogative and Secondary Legislation that needed no vote, to place it beyond retrieval into our statute books by signing up certain protocols.

[HDQQ]

Well any I've spoken to do know the difference, and understand it is they who are the body Blair turned to to remove our ability to hang criminals.

The death penalty was effectively abolished in 1965 when Blair was about 12.  

[johnofgwent]

The Council of Europe has 46 member states
We should definitely stay in it.

I don't suppose most Brexiters even realised that the Council of Europe is separate from the EU and that we're still in it.

Well any I've spoken to do know the difference, and understand it is they who are the body Blair turned to to remove our ability to hang criminals.

[Baff]

The Council of Europe has 46 member states including traditionally neutral Switzerland. Russia was expelled earlier this year.

We should definitely stay in it.

I don't suppose most Brexiters even realised that the Council of Europe is separate from the EU and that we're still in it. The European flag was introduced by the Council of Europe so we can still legitimately display it on our car number plates, as indeed I do. It is not an official EU flag but they are permitted to use it by virtue of being a European institution.

I don't think it matters.
We don't need the Council of Europe to explain right from wrong to us.
We are perfectly able to work that out for ourselves and each and every one of us has already come to our conclusion as to the morality of it.

The country wants to see this issue resolved. Most people wish to see the boats stop coming.
The level of public agreement on this is massive.
The Rwanda scheme is massive. A total crowd pleaser.

If you tell the British public they can't resolve their issues because something or someone is blocking them....
They will get rid of the blockage.

Many of those people who are seen to be blocking it won't get re-elected.
It will just sort itself out over time.
(This is how Boris got his landslide. People blocking him from doing what the people wanted got de-selected. So he will be all over this, looking for a re-run).



The EHCR in all likelihood has absolutely zero jurisdiction in any country at all.
Each of those countries will or will not have passed a domestic law that mirrors some but not all of the EHCR.

In the UK for example, we started the EHCR in about 1950.
We only signed it into law in 1998. We were still members of the EHCR before it was part of our law.
So many countries don't sign the convention into their own laws. It's more of a gentlemen's agreement.
And those that do sign it into law, tailor it to their own specific circumstances. Grant themselves exemptions from parts of it they think will give them trouble.
(And we will have done the same).

This is a domestic law governed by a domestic court. What the EHCR says doesn't matter. Because they are not a legal body, they are a diplomatic body.

[patman post]

Leaving the ECHR was one of the main reasons I voted to leave in 2016.

If that's true — and you weren't confused between the ECJ and ECHR — you don't boost my confidence in your ability to make any rational decisions or comment.

No offence intended,  Old Chap...