Re-negotiate the Dublin Agreement and provide safe passage

GrannyGravy13

I was in no way advocating for the U.K. to leave the ECHR.

As others have posted it’s possible for a country to have its own human rights laws, as many do.

But we do have our own, since 1998. That is what the right wing of the Tories are trying to scrape, in order to get their way over transporting 300 asylum seekers.

So even if they left the ECHR, we still have the identical rights incorporated into U.K. law, which the judgment on Rwanda was made.

So what do they intend to do?

Take away everyone’s rights in order to transport 300 people?

Whitewavemark2

fancythat

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66438422

That just reiterates what we’ve already said. It tells us nothing really.

But it does.

The first two paragraphs in particular.

Another article in the DM today[wont bother to link] does as well.

I could be wrong, but sometimes I feel you try and hide the truth.

I was in no way advocating for the U.K. to leave the ECHR.

As others have posted it’s possible for a country to have its own human rights laws, as many do.

GrannyGravy13

195 Countries in the world
193 in the United Nations
46 in the ECHR

I am not saying we should leave, just pointing out that there are many civilised democratic Countries who manage without it.

Try reading about the UN Declaration of Human Rights, GG13 and how other countries have integrated it into their laws.

Other countries manage' because they do something similar. They don't just abandon human rights.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

When one considers that the reason there are rumblings about leaving the ECHR because our government wants to remove human rights from some people I find it utterly disgusting that there is support for it.

And surely we have learned from the Brexit experience that the lies that the anti EU people tell about how absolutely fine and trouble free all this disengaging ourselves from foreign institutions will be turn out to be just that, lies. Big lies.

Let's make no mistake. Despite the fact that the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU, there are enough ignorant people around who will associate the two, to make the anti ECHR narratives quite potent.

So if you look at other countries E.g. USA- human rights are a cornerstone of their constitution.

Most countries have human rights as part of their constitution, or a stand alone Bill of Rights.

So getting rid of our rights would be a very bold thing to do!!

Expect the following government to enact them pdq

GrannyGravy13

195 Countries in the world
193 in the United Nations
46 in the ECHR

I am not saying we should leave, just pointing out that there are many civilised democratic Countries who manage without it.

So are you saying that we should scrap these rights and not replace them.

You do know that we have encapsulated them into U.K. law? So are you content to see them scrapped from our law?

Where would that leave you as a citizen, and your human rights under a future unscrupulous government?

But GG point still stands.

GrannyGravy13

195 Countries in the world
193 in the United Nations
46 in the ECHR

I am not saying we should leave, just pointing out that there are many civilised democratic Countries who manage without it.

It’s the European Convention on Human Rights, so only countries in Europe are eligible to join. There are 46 member countries, with the only countries not part of it being Belarus and the Russian Federation.

The clue is in the E for European… however, there are 5 observer countries: the Holy See, the United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico.

195 Countries in the world
193 in the United Nations
46 in the ECHR

I am not saying we should leave, just pointing out that there are many civilised democratic Countries who manage without it.

Aveline

Of course. It's all the Tories fault.

Well spotted, yes, bravo.

Thanks siobe

Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t remove the Human Rights Act - that would require separate legislation (which is theoretically possible, but recall the mess the government made of its Bill of Rights) - and the UK Supreme Court would still have to give due regard to international law in its decision making.

It would be disastrous just the same for a whole range of reasons, including
- removing the UK’s ability to influence key planks of international law;
- damaging co-operation on security and criminal issues;
- wrecking the relationship with the US;
- it runs counter to the UK’s strategic priorities as set out in the 2021 Integration Review and 2023 Integration Review Refresh (which I’m sure all those suggesting leaving the ECHR have read carefully);
- and it would totally destroy the Good Friday Agreement, to which the ECHR is integral.

Before anyone suggests it: it’s not possible for any single part of the UK to be in the ECHR, while the rest is not - Article 1 is clear on obligations

The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention

The GFA is here: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1034123/The_Belfast_Agreement_An_Agreement_Reached_at_the_Multi-Party_Talks_on_Northern_Ireland.pdf

and again, I’m sure all the anti-ECHR posters are familiar with it, and have proposals to replace it with something g equally effective and acceptable to both communities.

fancythat

It all partly comes down to who you trust.

Who gets elected.
But the EU, many dont even get voted on?

Lots of people prefer to take their chances here rather than with the EU.

No intention of going all into this yet again.

You do know that the ECHR has zero to do with the EU?

It was set up by the British and with cooperation from other countries in Europe. Administered fro m Europe, but could just as well be administered fro the U.K. - it wouldn’t make any difference.

fancythat

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66438422

That just reiterates what we’ve already said. It tells us nothing really.

It all partly comes down to who you trust.

Who gets elected.
But the EU, many dont even get voted on?

Lots of people prefer to take their chances here rather than with the EU.

No intention of going all into this yet again.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66438422

fancythat

New rights would be made.
Hopefully wise and sensible ones.

Laws change all the time.

Just what is wrong with the old rights?

Were you thinking about excluding some people from them, like the government would like to exclude some asylum seekers?

What would you call them? Because they wouldn't be human rights any more, would they? They'd be Chosen UK People's rights.

Laws certainly change, but history very clearly shows us that people don't.

The EU is looking at Tunisia as a place to send migrants. Tunisia is currently under caution by the Uk as a place to visit due to terrorist attacks.
It’s also forming a policy to charge 20000 euros per refused migrant so targeting Poland and Hungry. It will be interesting to know what the outcome eventually will be of its new migration pact.

fancy that, it was our own Judges who ruled against Rwanda. No there are no benefits to leaving the ECHR. It’s nonsense to suggest otherwise

Casdon

Yes, I can’t wait until the next referendum when we will ultimately vote to go back in.

😂

fancythat

New rights would be made.
Hopefully wise and sensible ones.

Laws change all the time.

So how different would they be to the rights we now enjoy?

What would you leave out?

I’ll list the articles to make it easy for you.

1. Obligation to respect human rights

2. Right to life

3. Prohibition of torture

4. Prohibition of slavery and forced labour.

5. Right to liberty and security.

6. Right to a fair trial.

7. No punishment without the law.

8. Right to respect for family and private life.

9. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

10 freedom of expression.

11. Freedom of assembly and association.

12. Right to marry.

13 Right to effective remedy.

14. L prohibition of discrimination.

15. Derogation in times of emergency.

16. Restrictions on political activities of aliens.

17. Prohibition of abuse of rights.

Protocols

Protection of property
Right to education
Right to free elections
Freedom of movement within your country
Abolition of death penalty.
Right of appeal
Right of compensation if wrongfully convicted
General prohibition of discrimination.

They seem pretty wise, sensible and comprehensive to me and there isn’t one that I would wish got rid of, and thus reduce my rights.

How about you?

Personally, I think it would be a foolish and dangerous path to go down by leaving the ECHR.

It's a failsafe against untrustworthy governments. This one is, without doubt, untrustworthy, and there's nothing to say the next one won't be.

I don't know what the final Rwanda Court decision will be, but leaving the ECHR, simply for that, would be a bad move.

New rights would be made.
Hopefully wise and sensible ones.

Laws change all the time.

So the ECHR emerged after the last war to stop rogue governments from inflicting harm on its citizens.

Anyone of us might find ourselves turning to one if it’s articles for protection. Indeed some famous cases that were won doing just that include.

Phone hacking cases - Millie Dowler case.
Journalist right to protect source -
Right for gay people to serve in military
Hills borough
Innocent peoples DNA and retention by police
Legality of homosexuality
Stop and search - only with reasonable suspicion.
Police must seek warrant to phone tap.
You can no longer beat up your children.
Your employee cannot discriminate against you because of your religion - this case won by the woman who wanted to wear a cross at work.
Sex trafficking and slavery made illegal
Employers have no right to read our E-mails.
Freedom to know what is in the public interest.

All these freedoms and much more are covered by the act.

So the insanity is that some people are willing to sacrifice the rights covered in the Act which 67 million people in this country can rely on to protect them in order to fly 300 non-British nationals to Rwanda?!

What insane logic is that?