crazy idea to exit, would create many internal problems & undermine various agreements eg in Northern Ireland. Cameron must realise such an exit would be a gift to SNP as Scottish parliament could block the exit ... and the rumoured England only bill floated by Gove would only serve to hasten end of UK
It will be interesting if the new Bill of rights says the supreme court is supreme and must not follow the judgements of any other court. The HRA says that the Supreme court should follow the precedents set by the European court even though it is not required by the convention.
It is a bit confusing but I believe the EU Court is the court at which disputes on EU Law are heard..........obviously if we are members of the EU we are subject to its rulings
It's not the same thing as the European Court of Human Rights
However I also believe that it is a condition of membership of the EU that a country signs up to the European Convention on Human Rights ........cases arising out of that Convention are heard at the European Court of Human Rights........
So I think we have to accept rulings of both the EU Court and the ECtHR if we are in the EU
The European court of justice is in charge of making sure member states are compatible with EU law, but EU law itself has to be compatible with the European convention, so is subject to the rulings of the European court of human rights I think.
Some how i dont think your going to get your wish, on the HRA being scrapped, before anyone can really make a judgement the pubic need to know what rights they are going to loss out on, not what rights the government gain
I would welcome a referendum on whether we should keep the Human rights act or replace it with a British bill of rights. We could hold it at the same time as the EU referendum.
I expect the anti HRA supporters will bring out the posters with a grinning Qatada laughing at us. The public will be reminded about how much he cost us along with a whole catalogue of foreign criminals and terrorists who have used the act to insult the British people.
It will be interesting if the new Bill of rights says the supreme court is supreme and must not follow the judgements of any other court. The HRA says that the Supreme court should follow the precedents set by the European court even though it is not required by the convention.
It actually doesn't.
What it means is that British courts are an extension of the ECHR and what that means is it is allowed to make judgements in British courts. It is also allowed to set precedents which must be listened to and used in future judgements by the Strasbourg courts.
So, in essence the British courts can influence Strasbourg just as Strasbourg can influence British Judgements.
I would welcome a referendum on whether we should keep the Human rights act or replace it with a British bill of rights. We could hold it at the same time as the EU referendum.
I expect the anti HRA supporters will bring out the posters with a grinning Qatada laughing at us. The public will be reminded about how much he cost us along with a whole catalogue of foreign criminals and terrorists who have used the act to insult the British people.
I sooner look at the loss of any right that the uk public might lose , which is worth alot more, than just money. And you get a better idea about these things when you hear the house of lords debating these things, the house of commons just try to hide things and that is even between each other. Chris grayling when in charge of the MOJ was very good at this.
It is disappointing if true. And many Conservative voters will be thinking the same. You seem to assume that he was taking our human rights away which is a fundamental error in the minds of many. I will be writing to my Conservative MP about this. If it was in their manifesto then it should be implemented. It's funny how no Tory complained about it prior to the election.
...i.e. it's a broken promise. Good luck with writing to the MP although I expect that you'll get some positive but non-committal response back.
Nope, but then since the election I have taken to consulting the far more accurate methods of forecasting, staring at the entrails of a goat. reading tea leaves, the reading of runes, the casting of bones, reading bumps on the head. and astrology,..........
no hang on, scratch the last one, let's not get too bloody ridiculous.
;-)
I wonder if it's significant that the Government Ministers who have dealings with foreign governments and British Embassies around the world, ie Cameron and Hammond, are the ones coming out against us pulling out
They must have made an assessment of the damage it would do to Britain's reputation in the world
Most people only seem to have a very superficial understanding of what Human Rights are........so how would it go down the next time we lay into China or Russia over Human Rights........people around the world and in Britain would accuse the Government of hypocrisy.
Given that Human Rights are citizen's rights against the Government........it would be quite easy to pour scorn on any Government who undertook to redefine their own citizens rights........what with the Government being the Defendant in any trials
There's no other area of Law where the Accused gets to write the rules.......
Comments
It will be interesting if the new Bill of rights says the supreme court is supreme and must not follow the judgements of any other court. The HRA says that the Supreme court should follow the precedents set by the European court even though it is not required by the convention.
The European court of justice is in charge of making sure member states are compatible with EU law, but EU law itself has to be compatible with the European convention, so is subject to the rulings of the European court of human rights I think.
I would welcome a referendum on whether we should keep the Human rights act or replace it with a British bill of rights. We could hold it at the same time as the EU referendum.
I expect the anti HRA supporters will bring out the posters with a grinning Qatada laughing at us. The public will be reminded about how much he cost us along with a whole catalogue of foreign criminals and terrorists who have used the act to insult the British people.
It actually doesn't.
What it means is that British courts are an extension of the ECHR and what that means is it is allowed to make judgements in British courts. It is also allowed to set precedents which must be listened to and used in future judgements by the Strasbourg courts.
So, in essence the British courts can influence Strasbourg just as Strasbourg can influence British Judgements.
I'm not sure if any other country has this power.
I sooner look at the loss of any right that the uk public might lose , which is worth alot more, than just money. And you get a better idea about these things when you hear the house of lords debating these things, the house of commons just try to hide things and that is even between each other. Chris grayling when in charge of the MOJ was very good at this.
...i.e. it's a broken promise. Good luck with writing to the MP although I expect that you'll get some positive but non-committal response back.
Prisoners may be given vote because of human rights climbdown, Tory adviser warns
Nope, but then since the election I have taken to consulting the far more accurate methods of forecasting, staring at the entrails of a goat. reading tea leaves, the reading of runes, the casting of bones, reading bumps on the head. and astrology,..........
no hang on, scratch the last one, let's not get too bloody ridiculous.
;-)
They must have made an assessment of the damage it would do to Britain's reputation in the world
Most people only seem to have a very superficial understanding of what Human Rights are........so how would it go down the next time we lay into China or Russia over Human Rights........people around the world and in Britain would accuse the Government of hypocrisy.
Given that Human Rights are citizen's rights against the Government........it would be quite easy to pour scorn on any Government who undertook to redefine their own citizens rights........what with the Government being the Defendant in any trials
There's no other area of Law where the Accused gets to write the rules.......
Nada?