Some of the prospective Tory leadership candidates want to us to…

[Crystalbits]

Leave the ECHR. Can anyone explain if this is a good thing. I mean there must be some logic to it. Robert Jenrick was Minister of State for Immigration, surely he knows the facts. Please explain this to me like it’s an idiots guide !

So they lied about what Brexit would achieve. Why trust them again?

It shouldn't be interfering in our immigration process.

So you keep saying, could you please explain how it interferes in our immigration process? Many thanks.

"It shouldn't be interfering in our immigration process."
How does it do that?

You can't want to leave the EHCR and want to maintain British values at the same time.

It's just a racist dog whistle.

I doubt he'd have any intention of following it through. It's an easy soundbite with 5 years in opposition and unlikely to win the election that follows. You can say things you'll never have to enact, which Farage has made a career out of. Look at the 10 pledges Starmer made to get the Labour leadership.

The only senior Tory who is serious about leaving ECHR is Braverman and they kept her off the ballot. Reform are serious but it's easy to be radical when you have no power.

Someone can be refused asylum/status to remain (be it criminality or otherwise). Appeal to ECHR stating human rights and we're forced to let them stay.

I’m not clear from your posts whether you support leaving the ECHR or not.

If you do support it please could you give some more detailed information about why, beyond “it shouldn’t be interfering in our immigration process”? E.g. do YOU believe it is interfering in our immigration process, and if so how?

Listen to Tom Tugenhadt on this. Long and short is stay in ECHR and follow France’s model. Good interview with Mishal Hussein on Today programme this morning. I really hope he makes it to the final 2, I would vote for him. He is the most sensible choice.

It's not that simple.

Under various international treaties we have to give asylum seekers certain rights, one of those rights is the principle of non refoulment. That means we can't send someone back to a country where they could be in danger of persecution.

The Rwanda plan meant that asylum seekers who hadn't had their cases examined, were in danger of being sent back to countries where they were in danger of persecution. They also would have no access to appeal decisions through the courts.

The ECHR has rule 39 which signatories have to abide by. Rule 39 means that the ECtHR can issue an interim measure in exceptional circumstances where there is a real and imminent risk of irreparable harm.

Strasbourg has prevented the Rwanda flights from taking off using Rule 39 because the Rwanda scheme is considered unlawful.

Therefore the Tories are using this to take us out of the ECHR because they want carte blanche to violate human rights. Don't for one second believe they'll only interfere with the rights of asylum seekers. It's the thin edge of the wedge.

It'll be like when they said we didn't need EU regulations to maintain environmental standards. Now our major export with the EU is turds into the channel.

It's all very project 2025, a bonfire of regulations & protections so billionaires can do whatever they like.

Rivet Jenrick is a No 1 txxt. Nuff said.

It was the UK Supreme Court that deemed the Rwanda plan illegal

Rwanda plan was the Tories implementing something they knew wouldn't happen, so they could hide behind lawyers.

He does know the facts. He's just lying to you.

The facts are the ECHR protects me and you.

He wants to remove that protection from me and you, and is hoping you are foolish enough to fall for the immigration nonsense justifications.

The question for you is do you hate immigration more than you like your own rights?

This is not true.

There's a grain of truth there, but you've simplified it so much that it's not true.

It's good that it doesn't then.

Which of your rights are you willing to give up? Because I want to keep mine, thanks.

They actually put into the plan that the ECtHR could be ignored as they knew they were blowing international law out of the water. However the principle of non refoulment and other rights protecting asylum seekers and refugees, is in the Refugee Convention and other treaties.

The ECHR is also embedded in the Good Friday Agreement and European trade agreements.

It must be awful for the 150-ish countries that aren't in the ECHR, not having any human rights. How on earth do they cope.

And if we left the ECHR what does Jenrick and friends propose doing about the GFA? And how do you think that will be perceived by our American allies?
What will you do about the EU-UK trading agreement?
And every other international agreement that references it?

Are you proposing to pull us out of the Refugee Convention too? Because the supreme court decision regarding Rwanda didn't solely rest on the ECHR, they made that very clear.

Be more like Russia and Belarus?

I would immediately ask the questions with what any of them suggest as a policy:

• Why didn't you do it in the last 14 years you were in Government?
• Was it because it was a) stupid and/or b) political suicide?

Define "controlling our borders" and how does the EHCR affect that?

Or Australia, or Canada, or New Zealand...

I suggest people arguing we should rip up the convention on human rights look it up, read it and see which of the rights you disagree with and think we shouldn't have.