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 !

Twenty years ago was 2004. Are you seriously suggesting that nobody before that, or for a while afterwards, had proposed leaving the EU?!

We joined the Common Market (after France had rejected us twice). We left the EU.

It's a similar situation with the ECHR. It may not have changed its name, but it sure has changed its powers.

Leaving the EU in 2004 was a very niche view - barely registering on the list of voter concerns

Much like leaving the ECHR is in 2024

The Tory leadership candidates want to be elected by the tiny group of people who make up the Tory Party membership. Frankly if I was a half decent member of the Tory Party I would be horrified that they thought I didn't want women to have maternity leave, that they thought the ECHR meant British soldiers had to commit murder overseas and that they wanted to destroy everyone's human rights. But maybe that is what most of them think?

There's hope yet then.

I didn't say that there weren't Eurosceptics twenty years ago I said Brexit would have been unthinkable. Farage only became UKIP leader in 2006 and the party gained popularity when he adopted populism, speaking out against immigration and appealing to the working class.

UKIP only really became significant around 2013 in the local elections. Cameron promised a referendum during the 2015 GE but no one seriously thought Brexit would happen. He was trying to entice Tories who had defected to UKIP. All the far right parties in Europe are anti EU.

It's a similar situation with the ECHR. It may not have changed its name, but it sure has changed its powers.

The ECHR doesn't have powers, it's a Convention. With the introduction of the HRA we can challenge human rights violations in our courts, as such our reliance on Strasbourg has decreased.

Of course the ECHR has powers. Otherwise there wouldn't be any point in being in it, would there?

The British Isles are geographically in Europe. That was not changed just because we left the political and administrative entity of the EU. We didn't up anchor and drift off into the Atlantic. Some politicians and others seem incapable of understanding this simple fact. The other nations of Europe are our near neighbours, and it makes absolute sense to have common laws with one's neighbours when it comes to something as fundamental as human rights.

What do the Tories propose next - leaving NATO?

Is Turkey in Europe?

Simply being in a geographic area doesn't mean we have to sign up to everything that includes the word "Europe" or "European".

@MyTaupeHare

I mean that the ECHR is a Convention and as such can't change or increase in power. It's not a body, like the EU which develops and changes over time.

The Convention hasn't changed, our circumstances have. The government were under a lot of pressure to deal with asylum seekers arriving on the small boats.

The ECHR and other instruments, stopped their very expensive Rwanda scheme so they want us to come out of the ECHR. If I remember correctly, that was a Reform pledge although I'm sure Sunak was talking about it when he was in power.

However, it's not as simple as just pulling out; it's being said to entice Reform voters and hard right Tories.

Is Turkey in Europe?

Part is in Europe and part is in Asia

@MyTaupeHare

Of course it has changed with time. And of course a Convention has powers. Otherwise what would be the point of signing up to it?

stopped their very expensive Rwanda scheme

That would be a power, right?

It wasn't just Strasbourg that stopped the Rwanda scheme. The Supreme Court in agreement with the Court of Appeal, found substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers would face refoulement. This was explained in an earlier post. Non refoulement is against various international treaties including the Refugee Convention.

The Supreme Court also found that Rwanda was in violation of many human rights including torture and enforced disappearance. As such it's not a safe third country.

Additionally, it would not be possible to process applications properly due to systemic defects in Rwanda's asylum system. Which includes 100% rejection of claims from various conflict zones such as Afghanistan.

The Supreme Court went to some lengths to make it clear that it wasnt solely the ECHR that led to the court finding the Rwanda plan illegal.

I see. Thank you. And of course the Supreme Court in the UK is a recent creation.

So things can change. And I still see no reason for the UK - or any country - not to leave the ECHR, and draw up their own rights.

Other than 'sovereignty' what is it about the ECHR that you don't like? And if the answer is 'nothing', would you also advocate leaving NATO?

Yes it hasn’t changed but pressure will increase

In five years the EU will be operating under different system and the U.K. policy will be under strain

It's already been explained why withdrawing from the ECHR would be a bad idea as it means people can't challenge the state on human rights violations. It also means that rights can be limited and withdrawn.

Further complications are the UKs international standing and the ECHR being embedded in various agreements such as the Good Friday Agreement, EU trade agreement and the various agreements with devolved home nations.

It's not a UK policy, it's an international Convention which includes most European countries.

I think we should leave too. We have our own legal system. We don't need another one usurping it. I'm not keen on any of the Tory candidates, they are all dire.

I’m not aware I said it was UK policy?

I said the EU are updating migration policy and Aus is covered

The UK is not doing either

It is necessary to prevent the stupider sort of Tory voter from deserting to the Reform Party.

There is no other reason. Tories in a panic, as usual.

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up Australia. We've had this discussion before and you don't believe asylum seekers have human rights. I fundamentally disagree.

Why not?

It’s an example of a different system which scores at the top of the HR table

You’ve mentioned a fair few countries that are lower relevance

As for the last part of that post try not to paraphrase so badly