Re-negotiate the Dublin Agreement and provide safe passage

Thanks siobe

Aveline

Of course. It's all the Tories fault.

Well spotted, yes, bravo.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

fancythat

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.

First two paragraphs

“Senior Conservatives - including a cabinet minister - say their party is likely to campaign to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) at the next election, if Rwanda flights continue to be blocked.
There is frustration at the role of a European court in stopping flights for asylum seekers taking off last year.”

What is it telling us that we didn’t already know?

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.

When the government makes it clear that it wishes to deprive a section of humanity of their human rights it gives one no confidence that they will observe their own legislation.

Particularly as they have for some time expressed a desire to replace it with a new version of our domestic human rights legislation.

I can only thank heaven that this government has, at the most, just over a year to run and all the signs are that it will be expelled by the electorate at the next General Election. This will, in all likelihood, not be long enough to pass new HR legislation, particularly as, I am sure, the House of Lords will hold it up until the government's term of office expires.

What 'other countries' do is irrelevant.

Iam64

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

Oops. Sorry WW. It was Iam64 who said this, and not you.

Urmstongran

Or maybe THIS instead of renegotiating the Dublin Agreement?

“Leaving the EU was supposed to give us back control of our borders. But we won’t truly get back control until we leave the ECHR as well.

We should ask ourselves what purpose is served by having a foreign court which supervises our rights and liberties. Canada, Australia and New Zealand seem perfectly happy that they can protect the rights of their citizens without needing to subject themselves to some external regional court. When the foreign court to which we have subjected ourselves is as deeply flawed as Strasbourg, the question should not be “why should we leave” but “why on Earth are we still a member?”

^Martin Howe KC is chairman of Lawyers for Britain^

I’m not interested in what they campaigned for in 2016, I’m interested in what they say say now. It’s clear that the ECHR was never meant to support people from every corner of the earth using it to support their arguments. It was set up to try to prevent European countries going to war with one another. That worked out well didn’t it? Ask Zelensky about that, or take a trip to Mostar in Bosnia and have a look at the bridge peppered with gun shot and then have a think about how successful the ECHR has been in its primary objective.

The ECHR was set up to protect human rights and political freedoms of all citizens in the 46 states of the Council of europe. Russia left after its removal from the Council of Europe and Belarus is not a member.

fancythat

Iam64

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

Oops. Sorry WW. It was Iam64 who said this, and not you.

Actually iam64 is right. Because the HR law is incorporated into U.K. law.

maddyone

Urmstongran

Or maybe THIS instead of renegotiating the Dublin Agreement?

“Leaving the EU was supposed to give us back control of our borders. But we won’t truly get back control until we leave the ECHR as well.

We should ask ourselves what purpose is served by having a foreign court which supervises our rights and liberties. Canada, Australia and New Zealand seem perfectly happy that they can protect the rights of their citizens without needing to subject themselves to some external regional court. When the foreign court to which we have subjected ourselves is as deeply flawed as Strasbourg, the question should not be “why should we leave” but “why on Earth are we still a member?”

^Martin Howe KC is chairman of Lawyers for Britain^

I’m not interested in what they campaigned for in 2016, I’m interested in what they say say now. It’s clear that the ECHR was never meant to support people from every corner of the earth using it to support their arguments. It was set up to try to prevent European countries going to war with one another. That worked out well didn’t it? Ask Zelensky about that, or take a trip to Mostar in Bosnia and have a look at the bridge peppered with gun shot and then have a think about how successful the ECHR has been in its primary objective.

No that is wrong.

The Common Market was set up to try to prevent countries going to war with one another, and in my view it succeeded spectacularly.

The ECHR was set up by Churchill after the war to prevent rogue governments from attacking people within their own borders and preventing their human rights from being compromised. That, in my view has been highly successful, Europe is as a whole, the most civilised place on earth, with every single person within its borders supported by this law.

It was set up to try to prevent European countries going to war with one another.

The ECHR was set up to prevent violations of human rights in the member states of the Council of Europe such as occurred during WW2. It was nothing to do with preventing war between European States. Prevention of war was the rationale for the establishment of the EEC.

It’s clear that the ECHR was never meant to support people from every corner of the earth using it to support their arguments.

Where is that made clear?

In my reading it is for the protection of people in the member states. There is no exclusion of nationals from other countries.

Actually i do think people are muddling the two concepts, which are entirely different entities.

The EU was set up after World War Two, initially by France and Germany using funding from Bretton Woods. Its original name was something like the coal market or some such, but was indeed set up in order to prevent further war over resources and such like. It was so successful that other countries joined very quickly to form a core of 6. It gradually morphed into the EU which is a commercial union, providing the biggest market in the world for its members and the most comprehensive level playing field for businesses in the world. So a businessman sitting in say Essex ☺️can be confident that he is operating under the exact same rules as say a businessman in Greece or Poland.

The ECHR was set up /initiated by Churchill alongside other European leaders with the intention that what had happened to German citizens would never, ever happen again. Countries were invited to join and the court was set up by the British in Strasbourg. Every country signed up to the articles and later protocols.

We, in the U.K. never had a HR law contained within our domestic law, so, in 1998 the Labour government decided that, that state of affairs could not continue, so deciding we could do no better, we incorporated the ECHR into U.K. law.

And as maizie says in order to protect people/immigrants/refugees etc, it was fully intended to cover every human contained within a countries borders.

And finally😄 for those who feel uncomfortable that the court is in Strasbourg and seemingly we are being told by “Europe”

Think about it.

Where would you have put the court post WW 2 - it made absolute sense to place in the heart of Europe where so much atrocity had taken place. Placing it in the U.K. would not have made sense.

Whitewavemark2

fancythat

Iam64

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

Oops. Sorry WW. It was Iam64 who said this, and not you.

Actually iam64 is right. Because the HR law is incorporated into U.K. law.

Who do you call "our own judges"?

U.K. High Court - Court of Appeal - ruled the governments intention to transport as unlawful.