to think no UK politician should be able to ignore the European Court of Human Rights

[Nimbostratus100]

ECHR orders banning actions that could cause severe and irreparable harm to an individual. Their judgements should not be overturnable by a single uk politician, who might or might not be acting in good faith, or know anything at all about the situation.

I am not saying what I think about Suella Braverman in particular, ( and I dont think anything good) but whoever is in this position now or in the future, who could be better or worse than SB, should not have the authority to overturn a ECHR decision based on knowledge and experience of many different countries, and assessment of evidence, and likelihood of irreparable harm to an individual.

Who knows, it could be any one of us one day, relying on the ECHR to save us from torture or death. Of course it doesn't matter who it is, it could be anyone. I think it says a lot about SB position of immense privilege that it doesn't seem to occur to her it could one day even be her.

you dont even know who will have the power in their hands to ignore this court in the future- it could be anyone - seriously! WHat if it is one of your children whos life and welfare depends on the ECHR, and some as yet unnnamed politician in the UK has the right to overturn their judgement! Look at some of the politicians we have now, and have had in the past - it could literally be anyone!

I don't know, I quite like the idea that we can pick and choose the laws we obey. Sounds like a way forward.

All of which being said, it seems that the Article 39 rulings being targeted aren't actual judicial rulings from the ECHR, but a sort of "judgement lite" version that have arisen over the years.

Not being a lawyer - nor playing one on TV - this may be a tad abstract for the nuanced debate that is the tabloids.

There is an element of "ball in the ECHR court" now (assuming our own HoL don't stop this first). What would they do if the UK decided to ignore an A.39 ruling ?

Also bear in mind the UK hasn't always obeyed the ECHR anyway. Ask any prisoner who voted in the last election. Or any election, come to that.

We should either be signed up and participate or leave. Some of the decisions do seem a long way from actual concerns about torture - but in principle I agree OP.

I think the principle of our politicians overturning or ignoring ECHR rulings is fine. As a country we should be free to decide our own rules and make our own decisions. The ECHR does not make decisions on what is best for individual countries, they take a broader view.

Of course there will be ECHR decisions I don't want to be disregarded but that's a risk I'm willing to take if it means greater autonomy for our country. We elect politicians to run our country but we don't directly elect ECHR members, therefore our own elected politicians should have the final say.

So it's OK it ignore treaties we have signed up to ?

Presumably it's OK for other countries to ignore treaties they have signed up to then. Maybe the Hague convention ?

its a court - you dont elect judges and juries in the UK do you? WHy should you elect members of a court/ It is a legal instrument, not a political one

the only other politician that has ever brought in laws allowing them to disregard the findings of this court is Putin...

I dunno, the Enabling Act passed by Hitler was pretty similar. It "enabled" the government to ignore courts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_act

It's one of the reasons the UK was a founder member of the ECHR.

Ironically.

I wonder if there's a German word for the situation. There probably is.

Op I can't find an article relating to this..could you link one?

If it's true then it is very, very concerning. The whole point of the echr is to give individuals a recourse to protect them from the arbitrary power of the state.

Personally I trust the echr more than our current politicians but even if someone else was in power I wouldn't want their word to be the ultimate one. What would then be there to protect us?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/european-court-of-human-rights-government-home-secretary-prime-minister-mps-b1075543.html

It was in the bbc lunchtime news in more detail

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65331272

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/20/experts-dispute-uks-claim-of-possible-echr-reforms-on-rwanda

I assume this is what you are talking about?

Should have known it was about asylum seekers. There is really no low that suella braverman wouldn't stoop to in order to placate her right wing fan base.

Anyway, whatever your opinion on asylum seekers, it's a very slippery slope and I don't trust any politician with this kind of power (not even if they were from a more palatable party..)

Hmm

Hitler, Putin and Braverman......

not a good look, is it

Braverman makes Priti Patel look like Mother Teresa. There is some slim hope that her cruelty is actually exceeded by her incompetence, and she deports herself.

Did anyone catch the story about her having to be held back from calling into a radio phone in to shill herself ?

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/suella-braverman-considered-posing-as-radio-phone-in-caller-over-racism-row_uk_6440f732e4b03c1b88c51bc7