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/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...tain-european/
ECHR for the chop post 2020 election
1 of 4
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.
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.
Most countries do - outside Europe.
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
Originally Posted by MARTYM8:
“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.”
“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
Originally Posted by MARTYM8:
“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.”
“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.
Originally Posted by Dotheboyshall:
“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.”
“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.”
Originally Posted by tim59:
“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”
“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.
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.
I thought that had already been done with the introduction of the HRA.
FTFA, some geezer spaketh thus:
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.
Quote:
“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.”
“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.
Originally Posted by jjwales:
“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.”
“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.
Originally Posted by Miasima Goria:
“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.”
“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.
Originally Posted by Doctor_Wibble:
“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.”
“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.
Originally Posted by jmclaugh:
“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.”
“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.
Originally Posted by jjwales:
“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.”
“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
Originally Posted by MARTYM8:
“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.”
“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.
Originally Posted by Miasima Goria:
“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.”
“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.
Originally Posted by paralax:
“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.”
“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
Originally Posted by jmclaugh:
“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 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.
Originally Posted by MARTYM8:
“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.”
“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.
Originally Posted by Miasima Goria:
“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. ”
“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.
Originally Posted by jmclaugh:
“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.”
“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.
Originally Posted by Miasima Goria:
“So the ECHR is irrelevant to er, rights.”
“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.
Originally Posted by Aristaeus:
“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.”
“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
1 of 4
