If you vote conservative or reform does the promise to leave the ECHR sound like a good idea ?

[Lottelenya]

Does it put you off or encourage you to vote for them ?
Personally I think it’s a crazy notion but then I’ve never voted for this incarnation of the Conservative Party !

I'm also interested in hearing this.
I think that it stems from the ECHR being blamed for why we can't just dispatch asylum seekers back to where they came from etc. It probably gets blamed for other stuff too, but not sure what

No, we shouldn't leave the ECHR. That then gives politicians the chance to chip away at human rights legislation in the UK.

And don't think that they won't because they will.

I was told by someone very knowledgeable that it needs to go as it adds a whole massive layer of bureaucracy to everything.
Without it it would be easier to deal with illegal immigration.
I’m not so sure. I think bureaucracy is rife in this country and rots everything, but I’m not convinced it’s the ECHR processes that cause it, but a high level of inefficiency and procrastination in government organisations.

Once it is replaced by a British bill of rights or whatever, I'm all for leaving.
I don't want to leave the court that protects human rights on a vague promise that in the future they'll do something else. Human rights need to be enshrined

No. It's an awful idea. The only people that suggest it don't understand the full implications.

Isn’t the relative impartiality of the ECHR important? A British bill adjudicated by British courts could be misused by an authoritarian government. I find it quite reassuring there is a higher court to appeal to.

Our current government has no respect for the rule of law. Reform Ltd is the same. It's terrifying.

I guess some people don't have any sense of how important things are until it's just too late.

Theres Already a Human Rights Act ( not sure what it's called) that Rishi wants to amend and will do if the Tories get back in. So be careful what you wish for.

No, I think it's an awful idea. People who advocate for this tend to forget that we were originally very much the moving spirits behind getting the Human Rights Convention and the court into place, and for very good reason. I've known some advocates for leaving to be quite taken aback when it's pointed out to them that they're trashing Churchill's legacy

I think the history of the last few years in this country has demonstrated that it's absolutely essential to have this because it's entirely possible for a government with a large majority to start abusing human rights. The fact that it's the government who brought us ridiculous concepts like the Rwanda Act that wants to get rid of the EHCR tells us everything - I just don't believe they would ever bring in equivalent protections as they obviously want to be left free for this sort of performance cruelty.

Agree with most of the comments. There’s a good thread on Reddit about ‘what the ECHR has done for us’. Not sure how accurate it is but here’s a shameless copy and paste

• Torturing Irish republican detainees (1978)
• Covering up the thalidomide scandal (1979)
• Treating homosexuality as criminal in N.Ireland (1981)
• Letting teachers hit children (1986)
• Forcing journalists to 'out' their sources (1996)
• Discriminating against refugees of a particular race at the border (2001)
• Detaining people for years without charging them a crime(2004)
• Mistreating detainees in Iraq (2005)
• Ignoring domestic slavery (2006)
• Barring gay people from serving in the military (2007)
• Letting employers snoop on employees emails (2007)
• Allowing the police to hold innocent people's DNA forever(2008)
• Giving police free reign on stop & search without due cause(2010)
• Detaining mentally ill people arbitrarily and indefinitely(2011)
• Sending people abroad to be tortured (2012)
• Stopping gay people inheriting from their partners (2013)
• Spying on everyone's communications in bulk (2016)
• Removing refugees to an unsafe country for asylum processing (2022)

These are not theoretical problems. These are measures that successive governments managed to pass through parliament and were stopped by the ECHR tribunal.’ I’m concerned about single issue voters (mainly lefty GC feminists) enabling a load of very dubious legislation and getting more than they asked for.

Global warming and instability are not going to improve in any understandable time frame. Being part of multinational institutions and particularly the EHCR with its neutrality will become increasingly important. Pulling up the drawbridge is not the answer to mass migration. As far as immigration to the UK is concerned, and without all the international pressors, we need immigrants for their skills and creativity and sheer numbers to keep our economy and public services afloat. I hardly know anyone who is not closely related to an immigrant ; the issue has become utterly toxic and depressing.

I would be ok with leaving if we could replace it with our own charter for human rights, it is a bit strange that we have created a ‘high court’ for Europe like the system in the USA when our European model is based on the sovereignty of individual nations.
It was set up in the 1950’s and I’m not against revisiting it and seeing if it has been a benefit for UK citizens. This is the
right wing position that there is no mandate from the people to implement the ‘mission creep’ of unelected officials in Brussels. It is worth considering that if Europe veers to the right and the court which has been very Left wing gets stacked to the Right then it might legislate in ways we do not agree with and which we would have to abide by.

I am worried about this proposal and don’t vote conservative or reform, but I wonder how realistic it is to solve migration problems without leaving the ECHR? It is clear that the majority of people want immigration, and especially illegal immigration, to be tightly controlled. In a democracy I believe that what the electorate want really should be listened to. Does any party have a good handle on how to do it though?

Tbf now we are ‘sovereign’ and out of the EU we still have no say over what our elected officials do because in reality they don’t tell the truth. JRM being one of those people.

Ah yes, Reddit that well informed bastion of facts and knowledge. Have you bothered to read into each of the claimed problems in that list? None of them have come from single issue lefties GC feminists - all of those cases have huge ramifications nationally and often internationally.

Do you not want the Government held to account on its decisions?

Thalidomide - the ECHR found the UK Government was covering up the scandal. This decision underlined the freedom of the press and freedom of expression.
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57584#{%22itemid%22

Journalistic sources - the ECHR found that journalists had the right to protect their sources.
https://www.coe.int/en/web/impact-convention-human-rights/-/greater-protection-for-the-media-after-journalist-fined-for-refusing-to-reveal-the-identity-of-his-source

Police stop search powers - the ECHR found the police had been abusing their powers under terrorism legislation to search protestors.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/12/stop-and-search-ruled-illegal

Gay people in the military - the ECHR found the UK Government had been unlawfully discriminating against gay people in the Forces.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/sep/28/claredyer.richardnortontaylor

I don't have time to review your whole list, but it feels very much "What have the Romans ever done for us?" and shows how effective the ECHR is against the Government. Not women.

@PeonySeasons don’t get you ? I think it’s a bad idea. My point was that single issue voters may get more than they asked for.

I don't think we should leave until we have a like for like replacement established in the UK. I can see the argument for reducing bureaucracy but we need to know people's rights are protected and responsibilities understood before changes are made.

The ECHR is completely separate from the EU though isn't it??

But these courts are just as subjective as our own and the judges presiding over them using the same laws to make their decisions. Every judge also uses their own personal biases in decision making too (even though they don't always admit to this).

I find it very worrying when politicians try to dismiss proper legal process as "bureaucracy". It's a very slippery slope.

The migrant discussion doesn't just affect the UK though it affects all the Mediterranean nations as well, and if the papers are to be believed, Greek coastguards are being a lot more inhumane in their dealing with the situation than the UKs proposal to send people to Rwanda!

Equally Ireland is now complaining because the threat of Rwanda is sending people fleeing there. It says to me the EU policy isn't working and a humane solution needs to be investigated to support the countries being affected most.

In a dangerous world full of ambitions politicians with questionable motives and aims another layer of check is surely always a good thing?

I thought this about Brexit. Why do all these rich, power hungry people want to isolate us from a wider support network? The only reason I can think is so they can get away with exploitation.

Yes, when I saw who supported leaving the EU, it pretty much made up my mind.

Thé ECHR is nothing to do with the EU or 'unelected officials in Brussels'. Thé ECHR is purely a court which rules on issues of human rights and was set up (largely on the instigation of Winston Churchill) following WW2.

The European supranational court is the ECJ and completely separate to this.