# On the Future Governance of the United Kingdom **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 9, 2015, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617 "2015-05-09T11:32:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/41 "2015-05-11T09:23:11Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > That assumes a united opposition, which is far from certain at the moment. Apart from the 15 or so votes that could come from the DUP, UKIP and Lib Dems, if the SNP want concessions from the government they’re going to have to work with them. It’s not necessarily in anyone’s interest apart from Labour and maybe the Greens to hamstring the government. Certainly, there will have to be a lot of negotiation needed to govern effectively, but Cameron has already shown he can govern with a coalition, so I’d say it’s premature to say he can’t do it again. The coalition had a majority of seventy. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/42 "2015-05-11T09:27:51Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The coalition had a majority of seventy. Yes. A CON/DUP/LD/SNP vote would have a majority of more than that. There is at least some legislation that will have most or all of that vote, and deals will need to be made to get the votes for other things. If the SNP wants Tory support for changes in Scotland, it will have to support other legislation in the rest of the UK. This government is not in as strong a position as the coalition, but it’s stronger than Major’s government was, with a united opposition. Only time will tell which it’s nearer. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/43 "2015-05-11T09:30:02Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > It has just been pointed out to me on another board that the Convention on Human Rights is effectively written into Scottish competence by the Scotland Act. > > I would like to see Gove try to undo that against SNP opposition. The European Convention on Human Rights is going to be written into UK law, if the do in fact replace the HRA. The change will be that it’s interpreted solely by UK judges, not EU ones. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/44 "2015-05-11T10:23:19Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > The European Convention on Human Rights is going to be written into UK law, if the do in fact replace the HRA. The change will be that it’s interpreted solely by UK judges, not EU ones. That is not compliant with our duties under the Treaty. We would have to derogate from or revoke the Treaty for that to happen. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 10:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/45 "2015-05-11T10:30:14Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > That is not compliant with our duties under the Treaty. We would have to derogate from or revoke the Treaty for that to happen. Yes. That’s the point, reclaiming sovereignty from Europe. It’s not about denying anyone their human rights, despite what lying lefties are claiming. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 10:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/46 "2015-05-11T10:38:17Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Yes. That’s the point, reclaiming sovereignty from Europe. It’s not about denying anyone their human rights, despite what lying lefties are claiming. The British (English) Bill of Rights will be decided by English and Northern Irish Judges. People would still have the right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights above the Supreme Court. Scotland is in a different position because the Scotland Act incorporates the ECHR into Scottish Law and that is decided by Scottish Judges. I do not believe that Gove will be allowed to remove that clause from the Scotland Act. If this does happen, I can see a flood of asylum seekers and economic migrants northwards! ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/47 "2015-05-11T10:41:38Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > What would bar Holyrood is the fact that Foreign Affairs, Immigration and Constitutional matters (which is what this is about, not Justice) a[re reserved matters](http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/visitandlearn/Education/18642.aspx)and therefore outside its competance. No one would entertain such a law at Strasbourg\*, a sub national entity cannot deal with a foreign body or a supra national organization without the consent of its parent State. > > This would incidentally also apply to deveolved matters, Holyrood is empowered to rule on Agriculture and Fisheries, but it has to rely on the UK Government when International COnventions and Euro law/rules etc are made. > > - Incidentally, there always was a right to “Appeal” to Straousberg, the problem that the HRA was designed to correct was the fact that Convention rights could not be directky enforced in UK Courts; and the repeal of the HRA will not make any difference to the right od Appeal, which is from the treaty not Statute law. I have since been informed that the ECHR is written into Scottish Law by the Scotland Act. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/48 "2015-05-11T10:43:01Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > People would still have the right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights above the Supreme Court. No, they wouldn’t. Have you actually bothered to read the proposal? But Scotland is welcome to take failed asylum seekers and criminals, should they want. Perhaps you could use your tax raising powers to pay for them? Rather than just demanding more money from Westminster… ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/49 "2015-05-11T10:46:13Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, they wouldn’t. Have you actually bothered to read the proposal? > > But Scotland is welcome to take failed asylum seekers and criminals, should they want. Perhaps you could use your tax raising powers to pay for them? Rather than just demanding more money from Westminster… Cite? Unless the UK abrogates the Treaty or gets derogations (which cannot be given for rights to life and to avoid torture), British citizens will still have the right to appeal directly to the ECHR over the heads of Judiciary and Government. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/50 "2015-05-11T10:46:15Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > I have since been informed that the ECHR is written into Scottish Law by the Scotland Act. And the replacement for the HRA will write in into UK law, allowing UK judges to interpret it according to UK precedent rather than relying on foreign judges and precedent. With all your rhetoric about how important it is for Scottish justice to be separate from the UK, you can’t argue against UK justice being separate from the EU. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/51 "2015-05-11T10:51:10Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > Cite? > > Unless the UK abrogates the Treaty or gets derogations (which cannot be given for rights to life and to avoid torture), British citizens will still have the right to appeal directly to the ECHR over the heads of Judiciary and Government. The cite is the government’s strategy paper, that we’re discussing. Have you actually read it? On page 5, it states “Our reforms will mean that: The European Court of Human Rights is no longer binding over the Supreme Court”. People can appeal all they like to Strasbourg, there’s no reason UK courts have to take the slightest bit of notice. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 10:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/52 "2015-05-11T10:55:05Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > And the replacement for the HRA will write in into UK law, allowing UK judges to interpret it according to UK precedent rather than relying on foreign judges and precedent. > > With all your rhetoric about how important it is for Scottish justice to be separate from the UK, you can’t argue against UK justice being separate from the EU. Cite please for it being Conservative policy to do anything other than Abolish the HRA and have a British Bill of Rights. There is no aim to withdraw from the European Convention. People still retain the right to appeal to the ECHR under that Treaty. It will merely return us to the position we occupied last century where there were more British cases before the ECHR than any other country because we did not have the means to test the Convention’s protections internally. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/53 "2015-05-11T10:58:12Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > The cite is the government’s strategy paper, that we’re discussing. Have you actually read it? On page 5, it states “Our reforms will mean that: The European Court of Human Rights is no longer binding over the Supreme Court”. > > People can appeal all they like to Strasbourg, there’s no reason UK courts have to take the slightest bit of notice. The ECHR is currently not binding over the SC. See Prisoner’s voting rights. Most of this policy is dog whistle politics. It will make appealing more difficult, but not stop it. The government also agrees that these rights cannot be removed from asylum seekers. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 11:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/54 "2015-05-11T11:00:41Z")
There’s no plan to withdraw from the convention prior to any referendum, at least. The plan is to ensure that, like in Germany, the European court can’t bind domestic courts. I see you still haven’t answered my question, have you actually read the proposal? ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/55 "2015-05-11T11:01:32Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > With all your rhetoric about how important it is for Scottish justice to be separate from the UK, you can’t argue against UK justice being separate from the EU. The Scottish Criminal Judicial system relationship with the UK SC is an exact analogue of the relationship between the SC and the ECHR. It is not possible to pursue criminal appeals through either system. The competence of the higher court in both cases is administrative not criminal. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/56 "2015-05-11T11:01:58Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The government also agrees that these rights cannot be removed from asylum seekers. There’s no attempt to remove human rights from anyone, asylum seeker or not. Have you actually read the proposal? If not, why are you commenting on what you falsely think it says? [Here’s the full thing](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2014/oct/03/conservatives-human-rights-act-full-document), so you have no excuse. ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/57 "2015-05-11T11:03:09Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > There’s no plan to withdraw from the convention prior to any referendum, at least. The plan is to ensure that, like in Germany, the European court can’t bind domestic courts. > > I see you still haven’t answered my question, have you actually read the proposal? The European Court cannot currently bind the British Judiciaries or Governments. You are being confused by smoke and mirrors. Don’t look here, look there… ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 11:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/58 "2015-05-11T11:03:22Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The Scottish Criminal Judicial system relationship with the UK SC is an exact analogue of the relationship between the SC and the ECHR. > > It is not possible to pursue criminal appeals through either system. The competence of the higher court in both cases is administrative not criminal. Have you read the proposal yet? Fuck’s sake, I’m starting to understand why Paxman is always so grumpy… ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/59 "2015-05-11T11:05:27Z")
> [@Pjen](#): > > The European Court cannot currently bind the British Judiciaries or Governments. > > You are being confused by smoke and mirrors. Don’t look here, look there… Have you read the proposal yet, or are you being confused by your own ignorance? ---
**Author:** ![Pjen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Pjen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pjen)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2015, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617/60 "2015-05-11T11:16:33Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > There’s no attempt to remove human rights from anyone, asylum seeker or not. Have you actually read the proposal? If not, why are you commenting on what you falsely think it says? > [Here’s the full thing](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/interactive/2014/oct/03/conservatives-human-rights-act-full-document), so you have no excuse. Yes. I have read that. It is smoke and mirrors. Although the changes will make it more difficult to enforce citizens’ rights in the courts, it will not override the Treaty commitments. It does no more than return the country to the position it was in in the eighties and nineties where rulings from the ECHR were eventually incorporated into UK law after appeals from citizens. So long as the UK is a signatory to the Convention, they are required to “Obligation to respect Human Rights The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.” No British legislation can overturn that clause. The only way to do so would be to withdraw from the Convention with all problems associated with it. The Government wisely is not planning to do so, and so will remain bound by their solemn treaty undertakings. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-future-governance-of-the-united-kingdom/719617.md?page=4)