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 !

But we do have that right. Do you have any idea how many different international agreements we are signed up to at any one time? Why is the ECHR so special to you?

We can pull out of any of them, as evidenced by the fact that politicians are actually campaigning to pull out of the ECHR. They would not be campaigning to do this if it were literally impossible.

But for many/most of these agreements the complications and negative consequences of pulling out would outweigh the benefits. Which is why we don’t go around pulling out of treaties left, right and centre for no other reason than some misplaced idea about how national sovereignty works.

This is literally a thread about the ECHR.

Ok, so tell us then - do you think we should never enter into any treaties, conventions or agreements of any kind with any other countries, or is it just the ECHR that bothers you?

You are being very obstructive in your replies. I find it hard to believe you have thought about this deeply.

I haven’t looked at the Aus version v what we have here but rights are well protected for citizens there and the policy set due to it is now bi partisan

The main difference is EU countries will struggle due to not having the same autonomy on policy

Some tension might go due to upcoming pact but hard to say. EU countries are finding the issues harder to resolve currently hence voting patterns shifting

If the IRA starts bombing again I will be the first to wring my hands having grown from infancy to adulthood in pre-1998 Belfast. Your post shows that you have nott keptt up to date with the facts wrt to NI and threats to their peace and the Union since then.

The UK were in the ECHR all through the Troubles. We got peace.

The stupidity of it all genuinely makes me afraid. There will be people thinking ‘brilliant’ happily supporting their own rights being removed.

I’m a History graduate and the blood and sacrifice that was given for our rights only for them to be potentially taken away through people’s wilful ignorance is frustrating.

The ramifications of being in breach will go far beyond the relationship between the UK and Ireland. Funnily enough the EU tends to back up its members. And as we'd be in breach of the UK-EU trading agreement they couldnt ignore it even if they wanted to. And no US president can afford to ignore it - so dont assume President Trump (if elected) will just nod it away. We rely upon co-operation with the US for security issues. It would be madness to risk that.

And its not even the sole reason that the Supreme Court found against Rwanda. So you'd be no further forward in pursuing that as a policy.

Funny but scarily accurate. The Tory party are honestly just lunatics at this point.

User135644
If its stopping us controlling our borders then it has to be considered.

That's a big part of Brexit vote, now we're told we have no power over our borders because of ECHR and bureaucracy.

How does it do that? Which of the rights it gives don't you want?

You can't reason with stupid @candlewhickgreen

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

I honestly think some people are so bitter and angry with these people they perceive as "other", stealing something from them, that they can't actually take a moment to comprehend that point.

The hate is strong.

Yeah it must be fabulous living in Gaza, Sudan or Mali right now. Why don't you pop off and live there?

Assuming a certain level of comprehension there....

Anybody who thinks it’s a good idea to get rid of the ECHR either has absolutely no understanding of its function and importance or does, and is deeply unpleasant.

A good, live example that should resonate on this board - article 2 (right to life) and article 3 (torture) are slowly being used to enforce a higher duty of care on the police to investigate domestic violence and protect those at risk as a result of it (mainly women and children, of course). The police and wider authorities have been incredibly slow to step up in this area, and it’s through the courts and these rights that this is being forced to be addressed.

How could anybody on Mumsnet be against that?

"MyTaupeHare · Yesterday 14:37
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."

Well 55 of those countries still have the death penalty so we can write them off for starters.

The UK will be more exposed than the EU and Aus over the next five to ten years

Aus have had policy for a while and the EU are bringing change in currently

In five years public opinion may feel more strongly about one or the other

You do realise that we can write our own Human Rights, right?

You don't understand the function of the ECHR. The ECHR was created after the second world war in order to protect people from the state. To prevent such atrocities happening again and to safeguard fundamental rights.

Until the Human Rights Act 1998, the only way people could enforce their rights was via the ECtHR which found numerous violations of human rights by the government towards its citizens. Since the HRA rights violations can be tried in our own courts and cases that have gone through court can go to the ECtHR.

Some important cases that have gone through Strasbourg have been Freedom of the Press, decriminalisation of homosexual acts in NI and the lifting of the ban on LGBTQ people being in the armed forces.

Since 2000 we've been able to enforce the Convention in our own courts but the ECtHR has still made important judgements. The HRA ensures that the rights outlined in the ECHR are protected.

Without the protection of the ECHR the government would have the power to take away rights without consequence.

Have you thought about any rights you would like to give up yet?

Or is it just a case of keeping them all but change the letters EC to UK?

Without the protection of the ECHR the government would have the power to take away rights without consequence

Good post but regarding the quote above - by my understanding this is what most people who oppose the ECHR actually want, isn’t it?

They want the government to take away asylum seekers’ rights without consequence. They do not imagine that this might in any way jeopardise their own rights.

Jenrick is a dangerous ideologue.

What holds that function in Aus?

The ECHR has changed a lot since we helped to create it seventy five years ago.

Why do people think the UK would not be capable of creating its own Bill of Human Rights?

Why do people think the ECHR is some kind of sacred place, and that our own courts could not provide fair justice?

And yes, why not create the UKCHR, with the same rights, that we can then have control over. Rather than Strasbourg.

Imagine asking Canada to be ruled by Strasbourg, or New Zealand!

And as for the sanctity of the ECHR, Turkey is in it, and Serbia, and Bosnia... And Malta, where journalists are murdered for exposing corruption.

Finally we got there

And yes, why not create the UKCHR, with the same rights, that we can then have control over. Rather than Strasbourg.

What do you mean, "finally"?! 😆 I've been saying it since my first post.

Why shouldn't we do that?

It's the first time you have said you would keep all the same rights, you avoided that for long enough.

As for why shouldn't we do that, for all the reasons outlined in this thread.