No. It is currently part of UK law. Gove wants to remove it and replace it with a watered down English Bill of Rights.
After that English and Welsh people will have rime delays in getting confirmation of their rights under the ECHR. Scots and Irish will still have it enshrined in their judicial process. Remember, Gove’s write only runs in England and Wales as Justice is a devolved issue.
I’m not anti EU as such. I’m against the mission creep and unrestrained bloat in the various European governments and courts, and I’m against the attitude that we should keep paying money and shut up (an attitude that comes far more from the British left than from European centrists).
Basically, I’m willing to be persuaded to vote to stay in, and I hope to be persuaded to do so. But for that to happen, the EU is going to have to reform itself drastically. Because if it doesn’t, it will collapse under its own weight, and I would rather not be caught up in it.
Well that’s rather different from what you were saying.
If we start to breach the ECHR - as written, not as interpreted by foreign bureaucrats - that will become relevant. Since the plan is to keep in full compliance with it, it isn’t. The ECHR is intentionally silent on the right of prisoners to vote, so our actions on that have nothing to do with our obligations. Whatever a foreign court says.
It was actually a discussion between a Tory advocate of Gove’s Folly and Phillip Sandes, Human Rights Lawyer. Quite interesting.
I learnt that the German claimed derogation has never been used in sixty years.
That’s factually incorrect. The plan is to incorporate the whole ECHR into British law.
That’s also factually incorrect. What will happen is that the confirmation of their rights will be decided by UK courts, and then will be settled. There’s nothing in the ECHR that gives a right to appeal to foreign courts. Perhaps you should read it sometime, along with the Tory proposal that you still clearly haven’t read.
It is not ‘run by the same people’. The Counsel of Europe is a grouping involving every European country save Belarus. The EU has far fewer members.
The ECJ rules on EU matters. The ECHR rules on Convention matters.
Even if we left the EU, we would still have exactly the same relationship with the ECHR and our treaty commitments would be unchanged by Brexit.
We are not in compliance currently.
The ECHR is enshrined in UK Law through the HRA, the Scotland Act and the Good Friday Agreement.
If you believe that Gove’s Folly involves importation of the ECHR rather than a less robust English Bill of Rights, please provide a cite.
I provided it earlier, and you claimed to have read it. Were you, erm, mistaken on that matter?
No. It will be decided by Scottish and N Irish courts which are separate from the Courts of England and Wales.
So long as the ECHR is entrenched by legislation for Scotland and Northern Ireland, their judiciaries will continue to consider ECHR rulings as binding.
The Convention does give individual citizens to petition the court once internal processes have been exhausted.
I have read the document you posted. I don’t think you have. Gove’s writ does not run outside England and Wales despite him being a Scot.
Cite for the Supreme Court saying that please.
Please quote where in its eight pages it says what you assert.
Have you learned the difference between the ECJ and the ECHR?
It is not a concern of the SC.
The final arbiter of compliance is the Grand chamber in Strasbourg. They have ruled that we are in contravention.
Under the current HRA all British courts are required to recognise that ruling.
Even without the HRA we would still be in contravention.
Page 5. “Put the text of the original Human Rights Convention into primary legislation”.
There’s no equivocation, they intent to put the ECHR into UK legislation. So, any British bill of rights will be at least as strong as the ECHR. This will keep us within all our treaty obligations.
If you read the whole thing, especially page 8, it’s clear that, even if we were to leave the EU or the ECHR the convention would still be enshrined in UK law. This doesn’t weaken anyone’s human rights.
What Gove’s folly suggests is that the words of the original convention from the
1950s will be copied into British law, but sixty plus years of case law will be ignored.
There is more to the Convention than its mere words. Like the US Constitution it is a living document.
It will be much weaker as all case law is ignored.
And that case law would still be applicable in individual appeals to the Court.
So, find me the ruling of a lower court that’s relevant.
They can say what they like, their advisory ruling is only that.
The former would have to be decide by the Supreme Court, and the latter is outright false.
All relevant case law will be considered.
Yes, but the ruling of the court would have no effect in the UK. As it should be.
We’re not some fascist dictatorship, we’re the inventors of human rights, and signed up to the ECHR when most of the current EU was still under Stalin. The idea that we’re going to weaken human rights is laughable. It’s utterly absurd, and it goes against almost a millenium of precedent.
I note that this is not currently a Government priority.
I doubt it will be brought forward as a bill before the 2016/7 session.
I suspect that it will either go to a committee to consider the way forward or be subsumed in any Constitutional Convention called.
I believe it to be smoke and mirrors to give a biscuit to the dogs.
Have you sorted out the difference between the ECHR and the ECJ yet?
Help me by providing a cite for that please.
England and Wales, not UK. Please respect the difference.
It may not effect the law in England and Wales but will continue to do so in Scotland and N Ireland.
What it will do for England and Wales is to leave the UK in non-compliance with the Convention.