“For the Conservatives to be the far-right evil party that we desire, we need to remove these restrictions”
Ah, aiming for the “hang the paedos, sink the boats, nuff said” vote then.
who knew Brexiteers dont like being burdened with a population who has “human rights”.
Given how right Brexiteers have been about how straight forward everything else is, maybe give this one a by, eh?
Note that:
– The Withdrawal Agreement is predicated on continued UK membership of human right treaties, including the ECHR. (Edit: technically, this only applies to the framework for future cooperation, the articles regarding the winding down of UK commitments in the EU continue to apply regardless).
– The Trade and Cooperation Agreement is explicitly dependent on UK membership of the ECHR. The law enforcement, legal cooperation, data legislation and investment part can be suspended instantly if the UK leaves the ECHR. It presumably will, since various member states have constitutional requirements for cooperation in these areas.
– The Good Friday Agreement and the political settlement in Northern Ireland mandates the translation of the ECHR into NI law. So either the UK breaks the GFA, ~~or it starts to operate two incompatible human rights regimes within its borders~~ (Edit: this is not possible, as pointed out below).
Even if you don’t care about the rights of non-citizens or, for that matter, about your own, leaving the ECHR will damage the UK’s national security, its capacity to enforce its own laws (including immigration procedures), its diplomatic position and its economy. In many areas, cooperation between the UK and its neighbours will be placed on the same legal footing as cooperation with Russia or Belarus.
Few things are more bewildering to me than humans cheering on the removal of their rights.
Pretty sure government don’t need to remove our human rights to deal with migrants.
However if you need a distraction to rile up your base while you do nothing productive then this seems like a usable ploy.
‘Removing your rights’ should be the tagline the Tories campaign the next election on. They have really excelled in this field.
The European Court of Human rights instigated by that dangerous lefty…..checks notes…..Winston Churchill?
In the US it took the worst terrorist attack in US history and the deaths of thousands of innocent people on 9/11 to get the public on board with their human rights being taken away ostensibly in the name of their own security, in the UK all it took was a bunch of asylum seekers trying to cross the Channels in boats so they could apply to be able to live and work here (something they absolutely have the legal right to do as guaranteed by international law of which the UK is a signatory and subsequently upheld as a right by British courts as well).
Surely leaving the Council of Europe would require a referendum (if leaving the EU did).
Anyone else getting visions of that chapter in 1984, where Winston goes to the cinema and watches a propaganda film of Ingsoc forces bombing a refugee ship and gunning down the survivors, whilst the audience cheers?
I wouldn’t be surprised if deadly force against refugees will be teased in the Conservative manifesto and election campaign.
They are gonna host a public vote to leave the court so they can stop migrants then use the power to instead take our rights away
I’m sorry but, this is a real thing someone actually spoke? Like someone opened their mouth and said these words without irony?
Wow.
“Am I so authoritarian? No, it’s the human rights that are wrong.”
I think we need to strip the tories of their rights.
The only two countries not in the ECHR are Belarus and Russia, not really countries known for their human rights.
Yep, there we go.
If your attempts to ‘deal’ with migrants violates the ECHR, maybe, just maybe, your approach is a bit… inhumane?
And does anyone honestly think that once they’ve left it, they won’t then start looking at other things currently covered by it, not related to just migrants?
Or are you confident that the government and the company you work for won’t try to cut expenses by reducing what they’re obliged to provide for the people a-la USA?
I’m fairly sure ‘we could do XXX except international human rights law won’t let us’ is a bit of a red flag when it comes to policies ….
I’m absolutely fine with ditching the ECHR if a politician can explain to me which of the rights it gives me they want to take away and provide a rationale for why I shouldn’t have those rights that I currently enjoy. Because they’re universal. If you take them away from some people, you also take them away from me. Oddly enough, I’ve never heard a politician attempt to give such a justification. Having read the ECHR (Convention, not Court), it’s a remarkably sane document and it’s hard to argue with any of the provisions it contains.
FWIW, it’s hard to see any real link between the ECHR and our inability to deal with the migrant crisis. There is no reason why we can’t do so within the ECHR. A sceptic might think that Rwanda is a deliberate distraction to try and remove our rights without us noticing, rather than any belief it will actually help the problem.
They have no mandate to do this, we are 2 prime ministers since the last election and no one voted for this.
This would make us one of three countries to exist outside the European Court of Human Rights, the other two are Belarus and Russia, two autocracies, fine company.
I am happy for those Brexit Backing MPs to lead by example. Let them say which of the rights they no longer need:
* Article 1 – respect of rights
* Article 2 – right to Life
* Article 3 – freedom from torture
* Article 4 – freedom from servitude
* Article 5 – the right to liberty and security
* Article 6 – the right to a fair trial
* Article 7 – the right to not be retroactively criminalised
* Article 8 – the right to privacy
* Article 9 – conscience and religion
* Article 10 – expression
* Article 11 – association
* Article 12 – marriage
* Article 13 – effective remedy
* Article 14 – discrimination
* Article 15 – the state right to derogate
* Article 16 – the state rights regarding foreign parties
* Article 17 – Right to not have rights abused by treaty
* Article 18 – the state right for treaty rights to only be used for the purpose provided.
Because it is entirely possible for them to Covenant out of the Treaty on a personal level. Simply sign the Covenant that gives up those rights and lead us all by example. If they are too frightened to do that or the idea disgusts them then we have an indication that they are not serious about this.
And the ECHR is enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement so thats another international treaty tipped up if you do.
For anyone who thinks this is a legitimate action…
Think about how many of your rights have already been stripped.
The right to protest. The right to strike. The right to exist for trans people.
Ditching the ECHR has nothing to do with migrants. It allows the authoritarians in charge to do whatever they want. Could mean no more minimum wage, no more annual leave, no more pensions.
This is very bad news.
The Heil has never been a fan of human rights. They weren’t keen when hurrahing for Herr Hitler, they weren’t keen when the Act came in. The only thing they like about it is the chance to make up a never ending stream of lies to keep their readers angry, like that nonsense about a foreign criminal being allowed to stay because of his cat.
THIS is the brexit they wanted. Screw the economy as long as we can drown asylum seekers.
To deal with migrants we need to strip them of their Human rights is a very interesting take.
Don’t worry, the Tories will replace it with a simplified set of human rights.
1, you have the right to work
2, you have the right to die (as long as it doesn’t impact your employer’s bottom line)
27 comments
“For the Conservatives to be the far-right evil party that we desire, we need to remove these restrictions”
Ah, aiming for the “hang the paedos, sink the boats, nuff said” vote then.
who knew Brexiteers dont like being burdened with a population who has “human rights”.
Given how right Brexiteers have been about how straight forward everything else is, maybe give this one a by, eh?
Note that:
– The Withdrawal Agreement is predicated on continued UK membership of human right treaties, including the ECHR. (Edit: technically, this only applies to the framework for future cooperation, the articles regarding the winding down of UK commitments in the EU continue to apply regardless).
– The Trade and Cooperation Agreement is explicitly dependent on UK membership of the ECHR. The law enforcement, legal cooperation, data legislation and investment part can be suspended instantly if the UK leaves the ECHR. It presumably will, since various member states have constitutional requirements for cooperation in these areas.
– The Good Friday Agreement and the political settlement in Northern Ireland mandates the translation of the ECHR into NI law. So either the UK breaks the GFA, ~~or it starts to operate two incompatible human rights regimes within its borders~~ (Edit: this is not possible, as pointed out below).
Even if you don’t care about the rights of non-citizens or, for that matter, about your own, leaving the ECHR will damage the UK’s national security, its capacity to enforce its own laws (including immigration procedures), its diplomatic position and its economy. In many areas, cooperation between the UK and its neighbours will be placed on the same legal footing as cooperation with Russia or Belarus.
Few things are more bewildering to me than humans cheering on the removal of their rights.
Pretty sure government don’t need to remove our human rights to deal with migrants.
However if you need a distraction to rile up your base while you do nothing productive then this seems like a usable ploy.
‘Removing your rights’ should be the tagline the Tories campaign the next election on. They have really excelled in this field.
The European Court of Human rights instigated by that dangerous lefty…..checks notes…..Winston Churchill?
In the US it took the worst terrorist attack in US history and the deaths of thousands of innocent people on 9/11 to get the public on board with their human rights being taken away ostensibly in the name of their own security, in the UK all it took was a bunch of asylum seekers trying to cross the Channels in boats so they could apply to be able to live and work here (something they absolutely have the legal right to do as guaranteed by international law of which the UK is a signatory and subsequently upheld as a right by British courts as well).
Surely leaving the Council of Europe would require a referendum (if leaving the EU did).
Anyone else getting visions of that chapter in 1984, where Winston goes to the cinema and watches a propaganda film of Ingsoc forces bombing a refugee ship and gunning down the survivors, whilst the audience cheers?
I wouldn’t be surprised if deadly force against refugees will be teased in the Conservative manifesto and election campaign.
They are gonna host a public vote to leave the court so they can stop migrants then use the power to instead take our rights away
I’m sorry but, this is a real thing someone actually spoke? Like someone opened their mouth and said these words without irony?
Wow.
“Am I so authoritarian? No, it’s the human rights that are wrong.”
I think we need to strip the tories of their rights.
The only two countries not in the ECHR are Belarus and Russia, not really countries known for their human rights.
Yep, there we go.
If your attempts to ‘deal’ with migrants violates the ECHR, maybe, just maybe, your approach is a bit… inhumane?
And does anyone honestly think that once they’ve left it, they won’t then start looking at other things currently covered by it, not related to just migrants?
Or are you confident that the government and the company you work for won’t try to cut expenses by reducing what they’re obliged to provide for the people a-la USA?
I’m fairly sure ‘we could do XXX except international human rights law won’t let us’ is a bit of a red flag when it comes to policies ….
I’m absolutely fine with ditching the ECHR if a politician can explain to me which of the rights it gives me they want to take away and provide a rationale for why I shouldn’t have those rights that I currently enjoy. Because they’re universal. If you take them away from some people, you also take them away from me. Oddly enough, I’ve never heard a politician attempt to give such a justification. Having read the ECHR (Convention, not Court), it’s a remarkably sane document and it’s hard to argue with any of the provisions it contains.
FWIW, it’s hard to see any real link between the ECHR and our inability to deal with the migrant crisis. There is no reason why we can’t do so within the ECHR. A sceptic might think that Rwanda is a deliberate distraction to try and remove our rights without us noticing, rather than any belief it will actually help the problem.
They have no mandate to do this, we are 2 prime ministers since the last election and no one voted for this.
This would make us one of three countries to exist outside the European Court of Human Rights, the other two are Belarus and Russia, two autocracies, fine company.
I am happy for those Brexit Backing MPs to lead by example. Let them say which of the rights they no longer need:
* Article 1 – respect of rights
* Article 2 – right to Life
* Article 3 – freedom from torture
* Article 4 – freedom from servitude
* Article 5 – the right to liberty and security
* Article 6 – the right to a fair trial
* Article 7 – the right to not be retroactively criminalised
* Article 8 – the right to privacy
* Article 9 – conscience and religion
* Article 10 – expression
* Article 11 – association
* Article 12 – marriage
* Article 13 – effective remedy
* Article 14 – discrimination
* Article 15 – the state right to derogate
* Article 16 – the state rights regarding foreign parties
* Article 17 – Right to not have rights abused by treaty
* Article 18 – the state right for treaty rights to only be used for the purpose provided.
Because it is entirely possible for them to Covenant out of the Treaty on a personal level. Simply sign the Covenant that gives up those rights and lead us all by example. If they are too frightened to do that or the idea disgusts them then we have an indication that they are not serious about this.
And the ECHR is enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement so thats another international treaty tipped up if you do.
For anyone who thinks this is a legitimate action…
Think about how many of your rights have already been stripped.
The right to protest. The right to strike. The right to exist for trans people.
Ditching the ECHR has nothing to do with migrants. It allows the authoritarians in charge to do whatever they want. Could mean no more minimum wage, no more annual leave, no more pensions.
This is very bad news.
The Heil has never been a fan of human rights. They weren’t keen when hurrahing for Herr Hitler, they weren’t keen when the Act came in. The only thing they like about it is the chance to make up a never ending stream of lies to keep their readers angry, like that nonsense about a foreign criminal being allowed to stay because of his cat.
THIS is the brexit they wanted. Screw the economy as long as we can drown asylum seekers.
To deal with migrants we need to strip them of their Human rights is a very interesting take.
Don’t worry, the Tories will replace it with a simplified set of human rights.
1, you have the right to work
2, you have the right to die (as long as it doesn’t impact your employer’s bottom line)