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 snide. Take a look at Austria, and France, and Germany, and Italy.

All agreements can be reviewed. With a robust UK human rights court, what would be the problem?

Australia has never been a member of the ECHR, that's why it is irrelevant

This is getting very repetitive and going around in circles.

I've already explained what the problem would be.

Any rights covered by the ECHR that you would like to give up?

During our previous discussions it's been pointed out to you that Australia violates human rights law by pushing back boats and indefinite detention.

You agree with their policies ergo you don't believe asylum seekers should have human rights.

The EU also want to use third countries with dodgy human rights records that you also agree with.

You also seem to want the UK to withdraw rights from asylum seekers.

Any rights that you think a UKCHR couldn't cover?

We will be in breach of the EU-UK co-operation agreement which means that they will be unable to share security information with us.
We will be in breach of the Good Friday Agreement which will reopen wounds in NI.
Both of these things will be disruptive to business, costly and dominate Parliamentary time.
It also opens up a rift with any US president.

Its impractical politically and practically.
And at the end of it all Rwanda is still not legal.

"Writing to the NI Secretary, Chris Heaton-Harris, he said that the Committee noted that “Northern Ireland is overlooked whenever the prospect of ECHR withdrawal is raised”.
Among the points brought out in the letter are:

• that there would be practical implications for policing given the duty for public bodies to comply with the ECHR;
• the impact withdrawal would have on cross-border collaboration on criminal investigations; and
• withdrawal would trigger the review procedure built into and be in breach the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.

Leaving the ECHR would have a detrimental impact on Northern Ireland and there is no credible argument for doing so from a Northern Ireland perspective, the Committee heard." https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/120/northern-ireland-affairs-committee/news/201704/committee-writes-to-ni-secretary-on-potential-implications-for-northern-ireland-of-leaving-the-echr/

Robert Buckland has a far more sensible overview and the Conservative party would do better to listen to him than yet again promise sunlit uplands which they will only fail to deliver.

conservativehome.com/2024/09/02/robert-buckland-conservatives-should-aim-to-reform-not-quit-the-echr/

I think it's two problems? GFA - can be reviewed. EU - can be reviewed.

I hope you're joking...If not, you seriously need to do a bit of research. The UK, under Winston Churchill, was one of the driving forces behind the establishment of the ECHR in 1953 following WW11. It has nothing to do with the EU. Its concerned with human rights, not language, you plonker.
The primary reason the Tories want to withdraw is because they don't want their immigration policy and individual decisions being challenged. Simple.

No, that's why we stay in the ECHR, not worth changing the E for UK

Surely your first point that "We will be in breach of the EU-UK co-operation agreement which means that they will be unable to share security information with us." has already happened? When we left the EU? And they soon figured out it wasn't a good idea.

The EU-UK Security of Information Agreement - European Commission (europa.eu)

My view is as below in pp, the EU is shifting on migration policy and Aus is already there.

As posted I don’t have a preference atm but wouldn’t be surprised if both those options were offered at next GE as pressures mount,

Aus is at top of HR tables as I linked. That’s not disputed

It also opens up a rift with any US president.

How so? The USA is not in the ECHR. If it's not good enough for them, why should they care if we are or not?

Are you suggesting that legal commentator (including Conservative MPs and attorney generals) and Parliamentary committees are lying to me? Why would they do that?

Chris Heaton Harris was the Cons NI secretary.

You are going to have to google the influence of the US on the GFA for yourself - but you'd be a fool to ignore it.
I have to go out.

Oh you meant in that aspect. I think that things have calmed down enough now, that the USA might allow the UK to have their own human rights body.

Opinions are opinions. How would a robust UKCHR be of detriment to the GFA?

The 4 other countries in that top 5 are in the ECHR

One right to go - any non U.K. national convicted of a criminal offence would lose the right to live here. If too much, restrict to violent and sexual offences.

I’d rather see the treaty amended though, rather than the UK withdraw.

Good luck with that.

The ECHR is embedded in many laws and policies for example through the HRA public authorities such as Government departments, local councils, police, schools, certain care providers, and prisons, must act in a way that is compatible with the Convention rights.

The Good Friday Agreement would have to be reviewed which could cause violence and other agreements would need to be reworked.

The ECHR is described as a 'living instrument' which means that it develops according to social norms, meaning that human rights protections continue to evolve.

I've already described how governments could potentially take away human rights and how the government won't be able to be challenged.

Additionally, it's a way of making changes through the back door. Essentially what ministers are telling you they want to do, isn't feasible. The rights of asylum seekers are already covered under instruments such as the Refugee Convention.

The Supreme Court judged the Rwanda scheme unlawful under the principle of non refoulement amongst other laws, which are already covered under different Conventions.

Like Brexit, you're being sold a lemon.

I, personally, don't agree with the Rwanda solution.

But I see no reason not to leave the ECHR. It is enshrined in our parliament that no government can be prevented by a previous government from doing anything.

Any agreement can be amended. Even the GFA.

Many countries around the world (even good ones! that you like!) are not in the ECHR. We don't need to be either.

Part of the country of Turkey is in the continent of Europe, the rest is in Asia. It is very geologically active round there, and there are several tectonic plate boundaries. I used to know the names of them, but can't remember offhand.

We don't have to 'sign up' to everything with 'Europe' or 'European' in the name. That would be silly. With regard to ECHR, as far as I'm aware, we were instrumental in its creation (thanks to Churchill and the Council of Europe) and were there from the start. It wouldn't exist in its current form otherwise. Bit like the Eurovision.

Anyway, we have digressed. All this thread goes to show is that, as I suspected, present-day Tories have taken leave of their senses on many matters, including the subject of this thread.