CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

OT: blocking out the European Court of Human Rights

(31 posts)
  • Started 5 years ago by Darkerside
  • Latest reply from Instography

No tags yet.


  1. Darkerside
    Member

    Obviously the place I come for informed political discussion is CCE...

    So. Tories plan to block out the ECHR on the basis that it's meddling with UK affairs.

    I'm not hugely up on the history of this, but is that not the point? Oversight of national governments, holding them to an agreed international standard? Because we haven't got the best record in this...

    Please; someone educate me!

    Posted 5 years ago #
  2. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    I guess the first thing to do is to read the source documents and await @Morningsider...

    http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

    Posted 5 years ago #
  3. SRD
    Moderator

    Apologies if I am telling you all things you know (unlike morningsider), but basically they seem to be appealling to notion of 'parliamentary supremacy' ie that our elected representatives should have the power to over-rule human rights (potentially more 'democratic').

    On the other hand, we want to hold parliament accountable to a constitution. There is not necessarily any need to go to international levels - eg the proposal that an independent scotland would have a justiciable human rights act/written constitution.

    Although this is more associated with presidential systems (notably the US and Germany) most parliamentary democracies that have descended from Westminster have also followed this path.

    It seems to work well.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  4. Darkerside
    Member

    I read the Wikipedia articles and then a few of the info docs from the ECHR.

    I've yet to see anything that we wouldn't want to keep.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  5. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @Darkerside

    Surely in this day and age the prohibition on slavery and forced labour are at least arguable? Think of the deficit! Etc, etc, etc....

    Posted 5 years ago #
  6. chdot
    Admin

    "I've yet to see anything that we wouldn't want to keep."

    I think *most* people would agree with that - inc various Conservative 'elder statespersons'.

    But this is about (populist) politics.

    There's an election coming u no.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  7. Darkerside
    Member

    I infer that you are suggesting some kind of raiding party south of the border to capture labourers?

    You're right; let's not reject this out of hand. Think of all the cycle lanes we could build!

    Posted 5 years ago #
  8. chdot
    Admin

    No need for border raids.

    When *we* leave the Common Market there will be boatloads coming from the Empire Commonwealth.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  9. Instography
    Member

    Dog whistle, headline grabbing, redtop appeasing nonsense that will go nowhere.

    See blogger / lawyer David Allen Green's view of it here: http://jackofkent.com/blog/

    Posted 5 years ago #
  10. Instography
    Member

    There's a link in David Allen Green's post to a speech by Lord Bingham on the 75th anniversary of Liberty that's well worth reading since he deals with the common misrepresentations of the ECHR and HRA.

    https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/sites/default/files/lord-bingham-speech-final.pdf

    Posted 5 years ago #
  11. Morningsider
    Member

    It's difficult to know where to start. The Guardian has the Conservative document setting out their "plans" for human rights law reform at:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2014/oct/03/conservatives-human-rights-act-full-document

    Given that there is lots of sniping at "Labour's human rights act" and the like, you can assume this is a purely political document. From a policy or legal perspective it is a veritable canine feast.

    It does contain a few gems though, my favourite being "We will set out a clearer test in how some of the inalienable rights apply..."

    Posted 5 years ago #
  12. chdot
    Admin

    Do we have rights to be aliens?

    Posted 5 years ago #
  13. Darkerside
    Member

    Handy link Instography; cheers

    Posted 5 years ago #
  14. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Ken Clarke: Conservative ECHR plans are bewildering

    "

    http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/105777/ken_clarke_conservative_echr_plans_are_bewildering.html

    Need to register to read rest, but I'm sure it'll be on other sites soon.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  15. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Section 5b of Strand One of the Good Friday Agreement requires the ECHR to be in force in Northern Ireland;

    https://www.dfa.ie/media/dfa/alldfawebsitemedia/ourrolesandpolicies/northernireland/good-friday-agreement.pdf

    One wonders if the intention is for England alone to opt out. In any case, our Irish brothers and sisters will doubtless be very confused by the proposal to renege on the agreement that restored a semblance of peace to Her Britannic Majesty's realm.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  16. Morningsider
    Member

    IWRATS - you are reading far too much into this. Do you really expect a coherent policy from a right wing Tory about a document that has the both "European" and "Human Rights" in its title?

    In (what passes for) their minds, this is all a dastardly plot by Johnny foreigner to prevent us from sending those terrorist chappies back to where they came from. Not our problem if they then end up having their unmentionables wired into the national grid by the secret police.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  17. chdot
    Admin

    (Very) previously -

    "

    The Bill of Rights[1] is an Act of the Parliament of England passed on 16 December 1689.[2] It was a restatement in statutory form of the Declaration of Right presented by the Convention Parliament to William and Mary in March 1689 (or 1688 by Old Style dating), inviting them to become joint sovereigns of England. It lays down limits on the powers of the crown and sets out the rights of Parliament and rules for freedom of speech in Parliament, the requirement for regular elections to Parliament and the right to petition the monarch without fear of retribution.

    "

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

    Posted 5 years ago #
  18. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @Morningsider

    You may be right, but by their actions I become more and more foreign to them. Out of interest, could the ECHR remain in Northern Irish and Scots law whilst the English become free to torture and enslave the Welsh?

    Posted 5 years ago #
  19. amir
    Member

    "whilst the English become free to torture and enslave the Welsh? "

    Perhaps I can seek asylum

    Posted 5 years ago #
  20. Morningsider
    Member

    To be a signatory of the ECHR, you need to be a member of the Council of Europe (CoE). Only nation states can join the CoE. The UK is either in, or out. Welsh people can breath easy for now, safe from the threat of English red hot pokers.

    There is one exception to this rule - the EU is also a signatory to the ECHR. This means that a unilateral UK withdrawal might not remove convention protections from UK residents. It probably also means that the UK couldn't withdraw from the ECHR, without serious questions about its EU membership - another plus for right wing types I suppose.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  21. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @Morningsider

    Very interesting. Sounds like @Instography was spot on. Dog whistle proposal that can never be implemented.

    Tories haven't won a majority since 1992 and their share of the vote's been on the slide since. Sounds almost like they're becoming a protest party.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  22. SRD
    Moderator

    This deals with some of the issues we've been discussing

    http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2014/10/02/will-devolution-scupper-conservative-plans-for-a-british-bill-of-rights/

    Posted 5 years ago #
  23. Ed1
    Member

    A trivial point:

    In respect to prisoner votes one of the prime ministers examples of unelected EU meddling, it seems interesting that the prime minister will argue the unelected EU is interfering in the Uk democracy by trying to impose a more democratic system of universal suffrage.

    Arguing it is more democratic for Westminster to decide against universal suffrage and stop those unelected Europeans imposes universal suffrage on the Westminster, claiming this is the democratic will of those the prime minister considers should be allowed to vote.

    I tend to think the right to vote should be separate from parliaments function as law makers if parliament can pass laws that has the effect of invaliding others right to vote then the law makers can influence the vote.

    If someone disagreed with polices of a government say for example the poll tax should they then denied the chance to vote for another government, I tend to think not.

    I think the right to vote should be separate from the whims of a current government.

    It seems a strange choice of argument; our democracy is being interfered with by unelected EU trying to impose greater democracy on us through universal suffrage.

    An "international body" trying to impose democracy on another country against the current leader’s will, god no -)

    Posted 5 years ago #
  24. SRD
    Moderator

    @ed1 agree totally.

    have never understood why voting prisoners is such a hot button topic here. (although I suspect it correlates to failure to teach about miscarriages of justice...)

    Posted 5 years ago #
  25. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Looks like the Blue Conservatives have even offended their house journal with this latest stunt;

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100288708/conservatives-should-think-very-carefully-before-ditching-the-echr/

    I love this quote;

    Ultimately the British are respected around the world for the authority of our great institutions: parliament, the free press, an independent civil service, the monarchy, an independent judiciary embodying the rule of law.

    Must be nice to live in a world where;

    * the MP's expenses scandal
    * cash for questions
    * mass spying by the tabloids
    * mass spying by the state
    * secret trials
    * super injunctions
    * rendition for torture, and
    * monarchical veto of bills going before parliament

    never happened.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  26. LaidBack
    Member

    insto "Do you really expect a coherent policy from a right wing Tory about a document that has the both "European" and "Human Rights" in its title?"

    Good analysis!

    Seriously find this quite worrying in relation to the fact that the UK state already has powerful anti-terrorist laws. (And can define the term as it sees fit).

    Posted 5 years ago #
  27. Darkerside
    Member

    Thanks all! I now feel slightly more educated.

    I've tried to summarise the discussion above and the various links here, should anyone else feel similarly confused:

    http://www.darkerside.org/2014/10/european-court-of-human-rights/

    (Attribution for you all is at the end!)

    Posted 5 years ago #
  28. Instography
    Member

    A twitter joke makes the point, which I'd previously missed that the fact that prisoners don't have the vote demonstrates that in spite of the ECHR and HRA, parliament retains its sovereignty.

    https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/518130857731964928

    Posted 5 years ago #
  29. Ed1
    Member

    After a few beers, not sure if i can say anything sensible. But yes to a certain extent the government has ignored the ECHR and HRA when does not suit their interests.

    Imagine if the council did not agree with the Scottish government law, so they ignored it, not quite the same but some similar principles.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  30. chdot
    Admin

    "

    SCOTLAND risks being “sidelined and marginalised” like Belarus under Conservative plans to repeal human rights legislation, it has been claimed.

    Addressing the Law Society of Scotland’s annual conference in Edinburgh this morning, justice secretary Kenny MacAskill said he was “deeply concerned” by Tory proposals which could see European judges stripped of their powers to enforce human rights in the UK.

    Mr MacAskill’s comments echoed those of Dominic Grieve QC, the former attorney general, who said the proposals contained a series of factual “howlers” and were not properly thought through.

    "

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/macaskill-deeply-concerned-by-human-rights-plans-1-3561900

    Posted 5 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin