• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.
  • Politics.ie will be closed to new posting in Two (2) Minutes! while the forum software is updated. This should only take a couple of minutes. Please finish any posts in progress.


Brits to Ditch European Court of Human Rights?

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,378
In what is quite likely to be an attempt to play to the UKIP gallery, Theresa May will announce plans to include in the Tory Manifesto for the next election a plan for the UK to quit the European Court of Human Rights. The body based in Strasbourg and not to be confused with the ECJ has judges from each signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it seems that the British are not overly impressed with some of the court's decisions.
The totally impartial and disinterested Daily Mail writes:
A great day for British justice: Theresa May vows to take UK out of the European Court of Human Rights | Mail Online

The European Convention has led to such hugely controversial decisions as banning the deportation of radical cleric Abu Qatada and giving British prisoners the right to vote.
Mrs May’s bold proposals to include the move in the next Tory Election manifesto reflect the party’s growing hostility towards Europe. If enacted, her policy would leave British judges free to interpret the law without interference from the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Mrs May wants to withdraw from the convention before the next Election in 2015, but Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, a keen pro-European, has made it clear he will veto the initiative.
As a result, it is set to be a manifesto promise to be put into action if David Cameron wins an overall majority.
Together with the Prime Minister’s vow to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, it will give the Tory manifesto a strong anti-European theme to combat the increasing appeal of UKIP.
The provisions of the European convention are already enshrined in British law in the Human Rights Act – but under Mrs May’s plan, the final right of appeal would be to the British Supreme Court, not Strasbourg.
Will this actually happen even if the Tories get an overall majority? What is the significance of the proposal and what will the political reaction be? What are the peos and cons? Is this reassertion of national sovereignty a good or bad thing?
 


Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,989
Good on them. Any luck at all and we will follow suit. But, this is being dangled in front of them if the Tories are re-elected (along with a In-Out referendum)?
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,059
Good on them. Any luck at all and we will follow suit. But, this is being dangled in front of them if the Tories are re-elected (along with a In-Out referendum)?
Not fond of human rights, then?
 

corelli

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
4,472
A couple of points.

It seems lost on May that the Convention was drafted by a TORY lawyer.

Additonally, and this never fails, she won't or more likely cannot, spell out which exact provisions or rights in the convention are wrong.

I dare anyone to do so in any kind of cogent manner.
 

SilverSpurs

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
5,525
In what is quite likely to be an attempt to play to the UKIP gallery, Theresa May will announce plans to include in the Tory Manifesto for the next election a plan for the UK to quit the European Court of Human Rights. The body based in Strasbourg and not to be confused with the ECJ has judges from each signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, and it seems that the British are not overly impressed with some of the court's decisions.
The totally impartial and disinterested Daily Mail writes:
A great day for British justice: Theresa May vows to take UK out of the European Court of Human Rights | Mail Online



Will this actually happen even if the Tories get an overall majority? What is the significance of the proposal and what will the political reaction be? What are the peos and cons? Is this reassertion of national sovereignty a good or bad thing?
They should not totally withdraw from the convention just place legal limits on it's application so it is merely a name and shame court. The CoE and the ECHR were and are noble ideals that were hijacked by socialists to impose their agenda.
 

Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,989
Not fond of human rights, then?
Of course I am. I am not fond of the abuse of the interpretation of what a "Human Right" is by this court.
 

tigerben

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
4,576
I can't see us keeping it if Britain goes out. The people they are trying to expell will move here , try and get Irish citizenship and move back , instead of us transporting our problems to them it will acually be us getting their problems. The ECHRs is all for the criminals ,law breakers and so. It's gone way pass human rights as what was invisaged.
 

statsman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
55,059
Of course I am. I am not fond of the abuse of the interpretation of what a "Human Right" is by this court.
So, who should decide what rights people have?

If you leave it to individual governments it's wide open to abuse.
 

Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,989
So, who should decide what rights people have?

If you leave it to individual governments it's wide open to abuse.
Who ended up having to decide Pamalagate and at what cost? There are dozens of examples of abuse here.
 

SilverSpurs

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
5,525
So, who should decide what rights people have?

If you leave it to individual governments it's wide open to abuse.
The libertarian no-harm/non-violence principle would be a good place to start imo.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,636
There's no way this is going to happen. It would do enormous damage to the reputation of the UK, putting them in the same camp as Belarus by being outside the jurisdiction of the ECHR.

If the proposals are made it will amount to nothing more than another bluff by the Tories who are looking increasingly desperate in the face of UKIP's growing popularity.
 

Boy M5

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
21,420
This is pure Fox News, Currant Bun logic.

A counter balance to / redress against the state or large corporations (or the nexus of the 2 - that facile Cameron fella anyone?) is somehow seen as a threat to the plain people of Inggerland / democracy / human rights.

No doubt the Oirish Daily Mail, led by Sebastian Absentee-Landlord will be trumpeting all of this nonsense in sync with the wishes of his über-Grüppenfuehrer Dacre over the next few days.

Remember, we are a democracy. One of the oldest in the World. We should cherish democratic norms and measures that preserve democracy.
 

Windowshopper

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
8,705
I find the British political culture very puzzling mainly because it doesn't seem very democratic: first past the post isn't democratic and MPs seem to foam at the mouth any time a court tries to curtail Parliament's almost-supreme power.
 

SilverSpurs

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
5,525
There's no way this is going to happen. It would do enormous damage to the reputation of the UK, putting them in the same camp as Belarus by being outside the jurisdiction of the ECHR.

If the proposals are made it will amount to nothing more than another bluff by the Tories who are looking increasingly desperate in the face of UKIP's growing popularity.
Utter scaremongering dross
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,636
People shouldn't forget also that one of the most important (though rarely used) functions of the ECHR is to allow states to take other states to court over human rights abuses. That's how Ireland was able to charge the UK with treating republican prisoners with cruel and degrading treatment, for example, in a landmark ECHR case.
 

pippakin

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2010
Messages
9,504
Perhaps if the Brits make enough noise the court will be updated, drastically. Its what it needs.
 

Mercurial

Moderator
Joined
Jun 4, 2009
Messages
86,636
Utter scaremongering dross
Only one country has ever withdrawn from the ECHR in over fifty years (Greece) and even then it was only because they wanted to avoid the embarrassment of being ejected following the installation of a military junta. Even Russia is a member of the ECHR and has had to make reforms following its judgments.

The only other country which remains outside the ECHR is Belarus, which is a de facto dictatorship. Is this the sort of company the UK wants to be keeping?
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top