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 !

Oh, are they in Europe?

I know Australia is in the Eurovision, not sure that counts...

They are not in Europe. And yet they have human rights!

We are in Europe. Whether you like it or not.

Anyone that supports withdrawing from the ECHR needs to outline what you propose to do about the GFA.

(And every other agreement that we have signed that includes it).

It’s a wedge being used by the candidates for their own advancement, just as Boris Johnson used Brexit. Very little to do with what they actually think.

Leaving the ECHR is incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement. It would make next to no difference to our ability to deport people (we can already do this) and our international obligations to refugees wouldn’t be affected either way. It’s a dreadful idea, wouldn’t achieve any of the things being claimed and would reduce our international standing even further. Might win RJ a few votes with the membership though so he’s going to promote it anyway. Jesus wept.

Yes. But that doesn't mean we have to be a member of the ECHR.

Many countries manage their own human rights. Why shouldn't we?

@MyTaupeHare - and your solution to the GFA is what?

Australia is a good case in point. They ignore international law and detain asylum seekers indefinitely and push back boats.

So which of the rights covered by the ECHR would you get rid of or change?

And what would you do about the GFA?

I'm not going to read the whole of the ECHR statute 😁

I am just trying to make the point that the vast majority of the countries of the world are not in it. It's not some sacred rite that has to be followed.

Some countries manage to decide and write down their own human rights. Imagine that!

Many countries manage their own human rights. Why shouldn't we?

We could, but it would depend always on how the individual national government is at managing human rights unless there is an overriding convention holding them to account.

This is why we sign up to international laws and treaties, and work together with other countries, and are not isolationist.

This means that sometimes national governments cannot do everything they want to do politically, particularly when it is against the interests of the human rights of their individual citizens.

Tough cheese. Overriding conventions are far more important than national politics and what fruitbat politicians want to do.

In the 1930 and WW2 we had the likes of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin "managing their own human rights".

That's why we developed international and European laws and conventions afterwards, so that individual regimes could be held to account.

The threat of the far right is always lurking. Italy has a far right PM. Austria has just elected a far right administration. On the borders of Europe we have dictators and countries that are very far from democratic and liberal.

We need national governments to be held to account more than ever.

Do you want someone like Nigel Farage in charge of your rights? Do you think he could be trusted with the rights of ethnic minorities or LGBTQ people? What do you think would happen if Farage was in charge with no recourse?

Many of those countries have appalling human rights records...

And have hardly a great human rights record in relation to indigenous peoples.

Great example, Australia 🙄

The United Kingdom was the very first nation to ratify the convention in March of 1951, imagine that

If you want change then you also need to explain how that will work in practical terms - that means addressing issues like the GFA.

If you can't be bothered to do that then I'd suggest you aren't best placed to suggestion altering legislation and international treaties.

But I'm not surprised you can't/wont - Jenrick can't either.

Well if we could do it once before, we can do it again for us.

Why do people have so little confidence in our country?

He'd have to get it through Parliament, if he was Prime Minister.

You've clearly read it then. What rights would it be so awful for us to drop and/or change?

And many have excellent ones.

Here you go with a summary

Which ones don't you like?

Most of those other countries are not in Europe so of course they are not in the ECHR.

Do you think it signifies anything at all that the only two European countries not in the ECHR are the two that have the worst human rights situation, Belarus and Russia?

I wonder if Starmer followed Jenrick or Farage's advice and came out of the ECHR as pronounced ultra-libertarians whether they would enjoy some of the things Labour might enact given free reign on human rights?

Just thinking the Blair administration were fairly authoritarian in response to alleged terrorist threats and were stopped by the ECJ and the ECHR a few times themselves with legislation they wanted to enact.

So remove that barrier and potentially we could end up with authoritarian laws that pronounced libertarians like Farage and Jenrick oppose. How would they like that up them? What if their freedom of speech were severely restricted? What if they were locked up for an alleged terrorism offence for opposing the government?

That's not the point. The UK brought in legislation according to the ECHR and the ECtHR has been fundamental in challenging the government's decisions.

Sunak brought in the Rwanda bill which sought to sidestep basic human rights. The Tories don't want to be challenged. If you look at the rights enshrined in the ECHR I doubt you would disagree with any of them.

The ECtHR acts as a safeguard to governments who don't want you to have basic protection.

Surrender all your rights to the grubby mitts of the Tories? Well, who wouldn't want that?