Should UK leave ECHR?
Discussion
There seems to be increasing discussion of the UK leaving the European Convention on Human Rights.
It was brought about to protect us against state abuses such as torture, killing etc but how relevant is it in 21st century Britain?
If the UK left, what would protect freedom of speech and Government railroading any policies they wanted?
It was brought about to protect us against state abuses such as torture, killing etc but how relevant is it in 21st century Britain?
If the UK left, what would protect freedom of speech and Government railroading any policies they wanted?
greygoose said:
Indeed, but then the OP has set up another thread about an over-reaction to the current riots, perhaps they could have merged the two?
Thanks but I asked this question as I feel this is worth discussion in it's own right.It's good to see the yes/no answers, it hadn't occurred to me to set up a poll.
I'm more interested to hear the various arguments.
Personally, my thinking at the moment is that the ECHR is the one thing we can turn to in the event of our government (whoever that is at the time) acts in a way that effects individual basic rights in a manner that would generally unacceptable.
I'm not sure we need the ECHR but it's good to know it's there if we ever did.
The basic premise of the OP is incorrect. It was heavily influenced/written/set up by the Brits, not for Brits but for European society. It wasn’t to protect “us” from “our” govt but to protect others from theirs. There is a reason so much of our processes are and have always have been aligned ECHR.
British politics is incredibly boring, we have very centric minded govt. Despite all the hoo haa about 6PMs since 2016 and the hysteria about “hard right” Tory MPs etc, in reality we are utterly “meh”. The Reform Party are astonishingly mild compared to others around Europe. We are v dull politically and frankly, I strongly suspect we always will be.
Whether we will leave the ECHR has v little chance of impacting the above much.
British politics is incredibly boring, we have very centric minded govt. Despite all the hoo haa about 6PMs since 2016 and the hysteria about “hard right” Tory MPs etc, in reality we are utterly “meh”. The Reform Party are astonishingly mild compared to others around Europe. We are v dull politically and frankly, I strongly suspect we always will be.
Whether we will leave the ECHR has v little chance of impacting the above much.
Another example of people being brainwashed to vote for self-harm. Why would anyone want to water down or remove human rights. ECHR has 46 members, 19 of which are not part of the EU. The only other European nations not signed up to the ECHR are Belarus, and Russia - countries the UK should not be associated with.
Labour will never leave ECHR and seeing as the Conservatives are unlikely to win power for a long time, leaving the ECHR is not going to happen.
Labour will never leave ECHR and seeing as the Conservatives are unlikely to win power for a long time, leaving the ECHR is not going to happen.
Pistom said:
There seems to be increasing discussion of the UK leaving the European Convention on Human Rights.
It was brought about to protect us against state abuses such as torture, killing etc but how relevant is it in 21st century Britain?
If the UK left, what would protect freedom of speech and Government railroading any policies they wanted?
You ask if it is relevant today, presumably because you believe the threat to individual liberty, and the accepted rights of citizens, are no longer under threat. The same argument could be said for dumping armed forces. We're not under immediate threat because, perhaps, we have the EHCR.It was brought about to protect us against state abuses such as torture, killing etc but how relevant is it in 21st century Britain?
If the UK left, what would protect freedom of speech and Government railroading any policies they wanted?
The wish to dump it by many in the tory government is a warning signal that it should continue. What purpose could there be in getting rid of it unless it is to ignore the rights that it upholds.
You also ask 'what would protect freedom of speech and Government railroading any policies they wanted?' And not only freedom of speech but actions such as torture, false imprisonment, being sent to Rwanda for political beliefs.
With the move towards popularism, the threat to our current rights is as under threat now as it always has been.
Derek Smith said:
You ask if it is relevant today, presumably because you believe the threat to individual liberty, and the accepted rights of citizens, are no longer under threat. The same argument could be said for dumping armed forces. We're not under immediate threat because, perhaps, we have the EHCR.
The wish to dump it by many in the tory government is a warning signal that it should continue. What purpose could there be in getting rid of it unless it is to ignore the rights that it upholds.
You also ask 'what would protect freedom of speech and Government railroading any policies they wanted?' And not only freedom of speech but actions such as torture, false imprisonment, being sent to Rwanda for political beliefs.
With the move towards popularism, the threat to our current rights is as under threat now as it always has been.
Thanks for that - that's helps me better align my own thinking.The wish to dump it by many in the tory government is a warning signal that it should continue. What purpose could there be in getting rid of it unless it is to ignore the rights that it upholds.
You also ask 'what would protect freedom of speech and Government railroading any policies they wanted?' And not only freedom of speech but actions such as torture, false imprisonment, being sent to Rwanda for political beliefs.
With the move towards popularism, the threat to our current rights is as under threat now as it always has been.
Pistom said:
Derek Smith said:
You ask if it is relevant today, presumably because you believe the threat to individual liberty, and the accepted rights of citizens, are no longer under threat. The same argument could be said for dumping armed forces. We're not under immediate threat because, perhaps, we have the EHCR.
The wish to dump it by many in the tory government is a warning signal that it should continue. What purpose could there be in getting rid of it unless it is to ignore the rights that it upholds.
You also ask 'what would protect freedom of speech and Government railroading any policies they wanted?' And not only freedom of speech but actions such as torture, false imprisonment, being sent to Rwanda for political beliefs.
With the move towards popularism, the threat to our current rights is as under threat now as it always has been.
Thanks for that - that's helps me better align my own thinking.The wish to dump it by many in the tory government is a warning signal that it should continue. What purpose could there be in getting rid of it unless it is to ignore the rights that it upholds.
You also ask 'what would protect freedom of speech and Government railroading any policies they wanted?' And not only freedom of speech but actions such as torture, false imprisonment, being sent to Rwanda for political beliefs.
With the move towards popularism, the threat to our current rights is as under threat now as it always has been.
If you read arguments for leaving they are always about the absolute sovereignty of parliament. However, this happens in no other 1st world country where the power of the legislature is always limited by the constitution and normally a constitutional court.
The problem is well illustrated by the Rwanda policy. The law on refugees is in the UNCR which the UK has signed. As treaty law this is then written into UK law. The policy was challenged in the courts. There where a number of arguments as to why the policy broke the law. The court decided that Rwanda was not a safe country and therefore there was a risk of those sent fleeing and becoming refugees again. The court looked at all the evidence and determined Rwanda was not safe for refugees. In response the government passed a law saying Rwanda was safe. This shows the absolute power of parliament. If a government wished to allow water boarding all it has to do is pass a law saying water boarding is not torture.
The fact is the ECHR is a bit of a toothless tiger but it's all we have.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff