DS Forums

 
 

ECHR for the chop post 2020 election


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 29-12-2016, 09:14
Miasima Goria
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Wammy's House
Posts: 4,784

Who needs rights anyway? May is to make opting out of the ECHR a part of her election platform

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...tain-european/
Miasima Goria is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 29-12-2016, 09:40
Dotheboyshall
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 9,312
What could go wrong when an authoritarian PM gets to decide which rights we should be allowed - and when those rights could be removed from us.
Dotheboyshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 09:44
MARTYM8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 40,288
Why should we not have our own British human rights legislation based on our values and interpreted by our courts.

Most countries do - outside Europe.
MARTYM8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 09:46
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,217
Will the UK public get more rights or have less rights than they have now. ? Well to give the UK public more rights you dont need to leave the ECHR, you only need to leave if you want to take rights away
tim59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 09:50
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,217
Why should we not have our own British human rights legislation based on our values and interpreted by our courts.

Most countries do - outside Europe.
Not correct the courts can only interpret laws on rights if the state has allowed you to have that rights in the first place
tim59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 09:50
dosanjh1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 5,794
Why should we not have our own British human rights legislation based on our values and interpreted by our courts.

Most countries do - outside Europe.
Unfortunately our government doesn't always act in the interests of the people.
dosanjh1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 09:55
Miasima Goria
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Wammy's House
Posts: 4,784
What could go wrong when an authoritarian PM gets to decide which rights we should be allowed - and when those rights could be removed from us.
Will the UK public get more rights or have less rights than they have now. ? Well to give the UK public more rights you dont need to leave the ECHR, you only need to leave if you want to take rights away
Relax, the Supreme Court will be the final arbiter of any disputes re rights. And obviously the SC is totally safe under a Tory Govt. SO why worry?

And I'm guessing the ECHR will get invoked along the way in Brexit negotiations. So the EU27 and the UK will be negotiating the rights of EU citizens here, and UK citizens on other EU countries under a Convention the Tories will scrap.
Miasima Goria is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 09:57
jjwales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,437
The Prime Minister is understood to be backing plans to “lift and shift” human rights enshrined in the European Convention and write them into UK law.

I thought that had already been done with the introduction of the HRA.
jjwales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 09:57
Staunchy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 9,779
As always, build a straw man based on the worst possible scenario then attack it.
Staunchy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 10:01
Doctor_Wibble
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,892
FTFA, some geezer spaketh thus:
He told MPs: “Although we have no quarrel with the content of the European Convention on Human Rights, it is the way in which that document is applied that gives us difficulty.
This reflects a fair chunk of the legal commentary surrounding the ECHR - it was written in a time when people wouldn't try it on and provide fodder for the tabloids (you only need a half truth once to make the rest clickworthy), and before the government and corporate worlds over-reacted and became scared to let anyone do anything for fear of getting sued, bad publicity etc.

A whole raft of reasons that none of the original writers could ever have envisaged, though in theory that would only warrant a wording adjustment rather than a complete rewrite, then again why not just have a new treaty, we have a whole team of people ready to be paid to research the wording for ECHR2.0 ...

So what's going to be in this bill of rights, if 'britishness' is the theme, then there definitely has to be provision for everyone to have the right to stop for tea at 4pm, including the tea pourers and crumpet attendants.
Doctor_Wibble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 10:03
Jakobjoe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: deploRable town centre
Posts: 6,210
just excellent news if true. this will be really popular and a winner.
Jakobjoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 10:04
Doctor_Wibble
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,892
The Prime Minister is understood to be backing plans to “lift and shift” human rights enshrined in the European Convention and write them into UK law.

I thought that had already been done with the introduction of the HRA.
If I understand correctly, the HRA means that ECHR cases can be done in British courts instead of having a jolly over to Strasbourg, but did not actually create a UK law with all the contents/clauses/wording of the ECHR.
Doctor_Wibble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 10:10
jmclaugh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,995
And I'm guessing the ECHR will get invoked along the way in Brexit negotiations. So the EU27 and the UK will be negotiating the rights of EU citizens here, and UK citizens on other EU countries under a Convention the Tories will scrap.
Don't see how, there is nothing in the ECHR that provides for freedom of movement between states.

If May does wish the UK to withdraw from the ECHR and replace it with a Bill of Rights it will need to be agreed by parliament. There is nothing inherently wrong with that idea but it depends on what is in the BoR and the cause lies with the 'interpretation' of the ECHR by courts which is primarily the redaction of the wording of article 8.
jmclaugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 10:12
jjwales
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,437
If I understand correctly, the HRA means that ECHR cases can be done in British courts instead of having a jolly over to Strasbourg, but did not actually create a UK law with all the contents/clauses/wording of the ECHR.
The practical effect though was to incorporate the ECHR into British law.
jjwales is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 10:18
Miasima Goria
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Wammy's House
Posts: 4,784
Don't see how, there is nothing in the ECHR that provides for freedom of movement between states.

If May does wish the UK to withdraw from the ECHR and replace it with a Bill of Rights it will need to be agreed by parliament.
Things like the right to remain will have to have some legal basis. The EU and UK say it is OK to stay, but that right will need to be enshrined in law somewhere.

I didn't mention FoM as that is a dead duck. It's why I specifically referred to rights - not FoM. In practice it will mean any agreement the EU makes with the UK around the status of EU migrants here will only be guaranteed until the ECHR is replaced with a Bill or Rights.
Miasima Goria is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 10:18
swingaleg
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 76,811
The Prime Minister is understood to be backing plans to “lift and shift” human rights enshrined in the European Convention and write them into UK law.

I thought that had already been done with the introduction of the HRA.
that's what I understood as well

I assume this will be sold as a massive clampdown on prisoners, foreigners, scroungers, gypsies, anybody else who the tabloid press can whip up antagonism towards.................but in reality it'll just be a technical administrative measure to prevent people taking cases beyond the Supreme Court by Appeal to the European Court

I still wouldn't be in favour of removing that right of Appeal but the tabloid headlines will far outweigh the actual significance
swingaleg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 10:21
paralax
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 11,738
Why should we not have our own British human rights legislation based on our values and interpreted by our courts.

Most countries do - outside Europe.
Absolutely right, but the fat cat human rights lawyers who have got rich using tax payer money, will be up in arms, and they'll have plenty of support from parliament and the house of lords. I cringe as I use the phrase but at the next election I think when it comes to the vote, 'draining the swamp' might come to mind. People have had enough of the self interested politicians, when Osborne and Cameron talked about us all being in it together, Brexit has shown what they really meant.
paralax is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 10:30
jmclaugh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,995
Things like the right to remain will have to have some legal basis. The EU and UK say it is OK to stay, but that right will need to be enshrined in law somewhere.

I didn't mention FoM as that is a dead duck. It's why I specifically referred to rights - not FoM. In practice it will mean any agreement the EU makes with the UK around the status of EU migrants here will only be guaranteed until the ECHR is replaced with a Bill or Rights.
The UK has already offered an agreement to the EU that each others' citizens should be allowed to stay post Brexit which the EU refused to discuss. That is almost certainly what will happen and the exit agreement would be the logical place to establish it in terms of a legal agreement. The ECHR or a Bill of Rights would be irrelevant to that as neither the former nor the latter do or will provide a right to FoM.
jmclaugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 10:30
tim59
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,217
Absolutely right, but the fat cat human rights lawyers who have got rich using tax payer money, will be up in arms, and they'll have plenty of support from parliament and the house of lords. I cringe as I use the phrase but at the next election I think when it comes to the vote, 'draining the swamp' might come to mind. People have had enough of the self interested politicians, when Osborne and Cameron talked about us all being in it together, Brexit has shown what they really meant.
So the public will not have the right to take the government to court then other things in the British bill of rights then. That is the only way not to have lawyers involoved
tim59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 10:37
Miasima Goria
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Wammy's House
Posts: 4,784
The UK has already offered an agreement to the EU that each others' citizens should be allowed to stay post Brexit which the EU refused to discuss. That is almost certainly what will happen and the exit agreement would be the logical place to establish it in terms of a legal agreement. The ECHR or a Bill of Rights would be irrelevant to that as neither the former nor the latter do or will provide a right to FoM.
The UK wanted to negotiate outside the parameters of A50 and the EU rightly said no.

BIB -And again, I specifically stated I was not referring to FoM. I was talking about things like the right to remain, it might also involve access to jobs, housing etc. An exit agreement will be next to useless for any migrant here that could have a grievance as the UK will be opting out of the ECHR, maybe the ECJ.

The UK will be joining Belarus as (I think ) the only other European country not to be a party to the ECHR. Something to look forward to there.
Miasima Goria is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 10:39
Aristaeus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 3,201
Why should we not have our own British human rights legislation based on our values and interpreted by our courts.

Most countries do - outside Europe.
Err.. you do realise the ECHR was broadly based on the English bill of rights, and that a British lawyer provided guidance on the drafting.
Aristaeus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 10:44
jmclaugh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,995
And again, I specifically stated I was not referring to FoM. I was talking about things like the right to remain, it might also involve access to jobs, housing etc. An exit agreement will be next to useless for any migrant here that could have a grievance as the UK will be opting out of the ECHR, maybe the ECJ.
An exit agreement will be the crucial thing for EU citizens remaining in the UK and UK citizens remaining in the EU and as both the UK and the EU will have signed it any grievance a citizen may have against the the UK or the EU with regard to it can be taken to the courts. The ECHR is irrelevant to that.
jmclaugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 10:50
Miasima Goria
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Wammy's House
Posts: 4,784
An exit agreement will be the crucial thing for EU citizens remaining in the UK and UK citizens remaining in the EU and as both the UK and the EU will have signed it any grievance a citzien may have against the the UK or the EU wilth regard to it can be taken to the courts. The ECHR is irrelevant to that.
So the ECHR is irrelevant to er, rights. OK.Good luck with that.
Miasima Goria is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 10:53
jmclaugh
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,995
So the ECHR is irrelevant to er, rights.
I never said that. Perhaps you should go away and read the ECHR and find out what is and isn't in it as you seem rather unaware of that with regard to the matter we were discussing.
jmclaugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-12-2016, 10:57
Dingbat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 1,059
Err.. you do realise the ECHR was broadly based on the English bill of rights, and that a British lawyer provided guidance on the drafting.
Indeed. It's a pity some folk never paid attention in history class.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davi...arl_of_Kilmuir
Dingbat is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:22.