Britain is prepared to consider leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Strasbourg judges block the Government’s plans to crack down on illegal migration, Dominic Raab has warned.
The Justice Secretary said the Government was committed to staying within the ECHR and would “strive every sinew” to remain within it but could not “rule out forever and a day the possibility that we might need to revisit our membership.”
He told the House of Lords Justice Committee that this would, however, depend on the “responsiveness” of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg to Britain’s new legislation effectively barring migrants who arrive illegally from claiming asylum in the UK.
Ministers believe the legislation complies with the ECHR but have acknowledged the novel approach “pushes the boundaries of international law” and have a more than 50 per cent chance of breaching the UK’s obligations under the ECHR.
Ministers are preparing to take on the ECHR over the use of interim injunctions, such as the one which blocked the first deportation flight to Rwanda last June and has prevented any removals until all UK courts have ruled on the legality of the policy.
The legislation includes a “marker” clause allowing the Government to rewrite the rules so it could ignore the injunctions, known as Rule 39 if negotiations with the Strasbourg court fail to secure reforms to answer Britain’s concerns about them.
Mr Raab told the committee: “We are committed to staying within the ECHR but we’ve said if asked that we could not rule out forever and a day that we would have to revisit that position.
“But that would depend on the responsiveness of the Strasbourg court to the vital issues that we are trying to pursue in this country including stopping the small boats.”
Mr Raab disclosed he had already met with senior Strasbourg judges to discuss UK concerns over interim injunctions, where a single unnamed judge in a late-night sitting last summer blocked the first deportation flight to Rwanda until the entire policy had been tested in the UK courts. It is currently before the appeal court.
Tory MPs are preparing to lay amendments to the illegal migration bill that would toughen the approach to the ECHR so that the Government could ignore interim injunctions and even wider rulings. However, they have accepted any debate about leaving the ECHR will have to be left for the manifesto.
Last week, Rishi Sunak warned lawyers preparing to challenge his illegal immigration crackdown that he is “up for the fight and will win”, as he accused the ECHR of being “opaque, unfair and unjust”. He made clear, however, he had no plans to leave the ECHR.
The illegal migration bill is expected to return to the Commons in two weeks’ time just before the Easter recess when the Government will face a backbench revolt over the detention of children.
Former ministers Sir Robert Buckland and Caroline Nokes have urged a rethink of the proposals to detain children and women which ministers say is necessary to prevent people smugglers targeting them.
The Liberal Democrats said on Thursday they would be tabling amendments to maintain the ban on the detention of children for immigration purposes.
Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesperson Alistair Carmichael MP said: “It is all very well for Robert Buckland and other Conservative MPs to wring their hands on the backbenches about how dreadful this Bill is.
“But last night they voted for it so their actions so far do not match their words. Sooner or later they will have to put up or shut up.”
“Conservatives prepared to burn more human rights” — this is NOT news…
Note that the UK can not leave the ECHR without breaking the Good Friday Agreement.
> The British Government will complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention, including power for the courts to overrule Assembly legislation on grounds of inconsistency.
This mandates the application of the ECHR in Northern Ireland.
> The High Contracting Parties shall secure **to everyone within their jurisdiction** the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.
This means the UK can not withdraw from the ECHR (wholly or partially) for as long as it is party to the GFA and Northern Ireland remains part of the UK.
So we are left with two options:
1) The UK government is prepared to withdraw from the ECHR, break the Good Friday Agreement and destroy the Northern Irish peace process.
2) Mr. Raab is lying and all this is just an electoral stunt that they know is unworkable and extremely destructive in practice.
It’s also worth noting that both the Withdrawal Agreement and large parts of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement the UK signed to the EU are explicitly predicated on the UK’s commitment to the UK. There will therefore be severe economic, judicial and national security consequences as well as political and diplomatic ones if the UK actually does this.
Good. The British people don’t deserve human rights for constantly voting Tory. I hope the Tories get in again and keep rinsing the public dry of health and wealth
> Britain is **prepared to consider** leaving the European Convention on Human Rights …
I am **prepared to consider** which Ferrari I will buy when I win the lottery.
—-
Please note: I can not drive and I don’t play the lottery.
Oh here we go again this is they need us more then we need them again version 1001 winston Churchill would turn in his grave and I fee sorry for the plebs that don’t see this as what it is gas lighting deluxe …
The article is full of contradictory statements.
>Britain is prepared to consider leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
Next sentence.
>The Justice Secretary said the Government was committed to staying within the ECHR
Further down.
>Rishi Sunak …….made clear, however, he had no plans to leave the ECHR.
Which is it?
And
>Ministers believe the legislation complies with the ECHR but have acknowledged the novel approach “pushes the boundaries of international law” and have a more than 50 per cent chance of breaching the UK’s obligations under the ECHR.
If the legislation kas “a more than 50 per cent chance of breaching the UK’s obligations under the ECHR”, it cannot comply with the ECHR.
My current understanding of the ECHR is that it might as well be called the “Court of British-Invented Rights that Other European Countries Have Gradually Adopted as Normal”
We should be proud of the the ECHR, we basically invented it.
Don’t worry people, the Tories have only got a year left to run. Truss pulled the mask off, and they’re still Thatcherites, in an era where no one wants unrestrained neoliberalism. Truss proved that not even the markets believe in trickle-down any more. We’ll get more of these kinda of stories as the timer ticks down, as they are an attempt to move the debate onto more cultural ground away from the economic disaster zone
Britain is not prepared to consider it. Some cunt born with a silver spoon in their mouth and an inheritance to hide is.
I’m utterly convinced this is exactly what they were wanting, the immigration bill was just a means of getting it done. People will be busy cheering on the success of getting rid of the immigrants that they miss the government stripping us all of our rights.
“We’re really starting to consider the first step of forming the committee to investigate the possibility of maybe at some point making a pros and cons list about potentially leaving the ECHR if conditions are right.”
I hope I won’t be eating my words, but this sounds like one of those political drumbeats that never happens.
Correct me if I’m wrong but won’t leaving the ECHR immediately invalid any existing trade deals with the EU?
Good questions, Alex. Given Dominic Raab’s precarious position, I’m not sure he speaks for ‘Britain’ as is suggested by this headline. Also, he reiterated the long-standing government position that the UK remains committed to staying within the ECHR.
Even the most cursory glance at the Good Friday Agreement will show the ECHR referenced in many places as a fundamental underpinning. Any reference by the Tories to repealing the ECHR must be bullshit and only done to create a Culture War division
Or we could just ignore it like what everyone else does.
The ECHR is effectively non-binding anyway – every country ignores it when convenient and there are no consequences for doing so. Germany, France and Norway ignore more ECHR judgements than we do.
“Government and Telegraph prepared to say absolutely anything because they know they won’t have to do any of it because they know they won’t be around long enough next election is a foregone conclusion and therefore democracy has effectively ceased”
It is (mostly) rhetoric.
This government knows that courts will block many of its plans, because it knows many of its plans aren’t legal.
When that happens they can blame the ECHR or other organisations.
Do they actually mean to leave? Not necessarily, as it is useful to maintain a scapegoat, but if the UK ever did get to the point of leaving the ECHR, there are certainly many rapacious capitalists in the Conservative Party who would see it as a good thing.
They will be out of government by end of 2024, though. Doubt they will do it before then.
Note that leaving the ECHR was NOT in the Tory Manifesto. This makes it immune to the Salisbury Convention and consequently The House of Lords cannot be overruled if they reject it. Even if the Tories announce this, it won’t be plain sailing to get it through.
Their desperation for this plan is so sad yet also horrifying.
I hate this all so much. What a sick joke this hate-filled, right wing nut job bunch of incompetent libertarian nobodies are.
I don’t think they ever mentioned this kinda sh1t during the last election. How the he’ll have we elected such criminals
Fun fact were the UK to leave the ECHR they would immediately be excluded from EU law enforcement agreement protocols and basically be unable to extradite wanted criminals back to the UK because said criminals could credibly argue in court their human rights were in danger.
Likewise no access to criminal databases, information sharing or warrant enforcement co operation
Seems like a great deal if you are say a white collar criminal on the run from the UK
Leaving the ECHR should be put to a referendum. It’s as massive as leaving the EU with how it can impact our lives.
This is a bit like those idiots who decide they don’t consent to the laws of the land, so will only obey an Admiral, just to get out of parking tickets.
If ECHR causes problems with your legislation, then the legislation is problem not ECHR.
Necessary..
Gotta protect their land.
Same as Braveman should stop this Rawanda Story.
They forget what took place in Uganda
26 comments
Story by Charles Hymas
Britain is prepared to consider leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Strasbourg judges block the Government’s plans to crack down on illegal migration, Dominic Raab has warned.
The Justice Secretary said the Government was committed to staying within the ECHR and would “strive every sinew” to remain within it but could not “rule out forever and a day the possibility that we might need to revisit our membership.”
He told the House of Lords Justice Committee that this would, however, depend on the “responsiveness” of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg to Britain’s new legislation effectively barring migrants who arrive illegally from claiming asylum in the UK.
Ministers believe the legislation complies with the ECHR but have acknowledged the novel approach “pushes the boundaries of international law” and have a more than 50 per cent chance of breaching the UK’s obligations under the ECHR.
Ministers are preparing to take on the ECHR over the use of interim injunctions, such as the one which blocked the first deportation flight to Rwanda last June and has prevented any removals until all UK courts have ruled on the legality of the policy.
The legislation includes a “marker” clause allowing the Government to rewrite the rules so it could ignore the injunctions, known as Rule 39 if negotiations with the Strasbourg court fail to secure reforms to answer Britain’s concerns about them.
Mr Raab told the committee: “We are committed to staying within the ECHR but we’ve said if asked that we could not rule out forever and a day that we would have to revisit that position.
“But that would depend on the responsiveness of the Strasbourg court to the vital issues that we are trying to pursue in this country including stopping the small boats.”
Mr Raab disclosed he had already met with senior Strasbourg judges to discuss UK concerns over interim injunctions, where a single unnamed judge in a late-night sitting last summer blocked the first deportation flight to Rwanda until the entire policy had been tested in the UK courts. It is currently before the appeal court.
Tory MPs are preparing to lay amendments to the illegal migration bill that would toughen the approach to the ECHR so that the Government could ignore interim injunctions and even wider rulings. However, they have accepted any debate about leaving the ECHR will have to be left for the manifesto.
Last week, Rishi Sunak warned lawyers preparing to challenge his illegal immigration crackdown that he is “up for the fight and will win”, as he accused the ECHR of being “opaque, unfair and unjust”. He made clear, however, he had no plans to leave the ECHR.
The illegal migration bill is expected to return to the Commons in two weeks’ time just before the Easter recess when the Government will face a backbench revolt over the detention of children.
Former ministers Sir Robert Buckland and Caroline Nokes have urged a rethink of the proposals to detain children and women which ministers say is necessary to prevent people smugglers targeting them.
The Liberal Democrats said on Thursday they would be tabling amendments to maintain the ban on the detention of children for immigration purposes.
Liberal Democrat Home Affairs Spokesperson Alistair Carmichael MP said: “It is all very well for Robert Buckland and other Conservative MPs to wring their hands on the backbenches about how dreadful this Bill is.
“But last night they voted for it so their actions so far do not match their words. Sooner or later they will have to put up or shut up.”
“Conservatives prepared to burn more human rights” — this is NOT news…
Note that the UK can not leave the ECHR without breaking the Good Friday Agreement.
[The Good Friday Agreement](https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/IE%20GB_980410_Northern%20Ireland%20Agreement.pdf), in the section “Human Rights” > article 2, states:
> The British Government will complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention, including power for the courts to overrule Assembly legislation on grounds of inconsistency.
This mandates the application of the ECHR in Northern Ireland.
However, Article 1 of the [European Convention on Human Rights](https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf) says (emphasis mine):
> The High Contracting Parties shall secure **to everyone within their jurisdiction** the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.
This means the UK can not withdraw from the ECHR (wholly or partially) for as long as it is party to the GFA and Northern Ireland remains part of the UK.
So we are left with two options:
1) The UK government is prepared to withdraw from the ECHR, break the Good Friday Agreement and destroy the Northern Irish peace process.
2) Mr. Raab is lying and all this is just an electoral stunt that they know is unworkable and extremely destructive in practice.
It’s also worth noting that both the Withdrawal Agreement and large parts of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement the UK signed to the EU are explicitly predicated on the UK’s commitment to the UK. There will therefore be severe economic, judicial and national security consequences as well as political and diplomatic ones if the UK actually does this.
Good. The British people don’t deserve human rights for constantly voting Tory. I hope the Tories get in again and keep rinsing the public dry of health and wealth
> Britain is **prepared to consider** leaving the European Convention on Human Rights …
I am **prepared to consider** which Ferrari I will buy when I win the lottery.
—-
Please note: I can not drive and I don’t play the lottery.
Oh here we go again this is they need us more then we need them again version 1001 winston Churchill would turn in his grave and I fee sorry for the plebs that don’t see this as what it is gas lighting deluxe …
The article is full of contradictory statements.
>Britain is prepared to consider leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
Next sentence.
>The Justice Secretary said the Government was committed to staying within the ECHR
Further down.
>Rishi Sunak …….made clear, however, he had no plans to leave the ECHR.
Which is it?
And
>Ministers believe the legislation complies with the ECHR but have acknowledged the novel approach “pushes the boundaries of international law” and have a more than 50 per cent chance of breaching the UK’s obligations under the ECHR.
If the legislation kas “a more than 50 per cent chance of breaching the UK’s obligations under the ECHR”, it cannot comply with the ECHR.
My current understanding of the ECHR is that it might as well be called the “Court of British-Invented Rights that Other European Countries Have Gradually Adopted as Normal”
We should be proud of the the ECHR, we basically invented it.
Don’t worry people, the Tories have only got a year left to run. Truss pulled the mask off, and they’re still Thatcherites, in an era where no one wants unrestrained neoliberalism. Truss proved that not even the markets believe in trickle-down any more. We’ll get more of these kinda of stories as the timer ticks down, as they are an attempt to move the debate onto more cultural ground away from the economic disaster zone
Britain is not prepared to consider it. Some cunt born with a silver spoon in their mouth and an inheritance to hide is.
I’m utterly convinced this is exactly what they were wanting, the immigration bill was just a means of getting it done. People will be busy cheering on the success of getting rid of the immigrants that they miss the government stripping us all of our rights.
“We’re really starting to consider the first step of forming the committee to investigate the possibility of maybe at some point making a pros and cons list about potentially leaving the ECHR if conditions are right.”
I hope I won’t be eating my words, but this sounds like one of those political drumbeats that never happens.
Correct me if I’m wrong but won’t leaving the ECHR immediately invalid any existing trade deals with the EU?
Good questions, Alex. Given Dominic Raab’s precarious position, I’m not sure he speaks for ‘Britain’ as is suggested by this headline. Also, he reiterated the long-standing government position that the UK remains committed to staying within the ECHR.
Even the most cursory glance at the Good Friday Agreement will show the ECHR referenced in many places as a fundamental underpinning. Any reference by the Tories to repealing the ECHR must be bullshit and only done to create a Culture War division
Or we could just ignore it like what everyone else does.
The ECHR is effectively non-binding anyway – every country ignores it when convenient and there are no consequences for doing so. Germany, France and Norway ignore more ECHR judgements than we do.
https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/43-per-cent-echr-judgments-not-implemented/18242
“Government and Telegraph prepared to say absolutely anything because they know they won’t have to do any of it because they know they won’t be around long enough next election is a foregone conclusion and therefore democracy has effectively ceased”
It is (mostly) rhetoric.
This government knows that courts will block many of its plans, because it knows many of its plans aren’t legal.
When that happens they can blame the ECHR or other organisations.
Do they actually mean to leave? Not necessarily, as it is useful to maintain a scapegoat, but if the UK ever did get to the point of leaving the ECHR, there are certainly many rapacious capitalists in the Conservative Party who would see it as a good thing.
They will be out of government by end of 2024, though. Doubt they will do it before then.
Note that leaving the ECHR was NOT in the Tory Manifesto. This makes it immune to the Salisbury Convention and consequently The House of Lords cannot be overruled if they reject it. Even if the Tories announce this, it won’t be plain sailing to get it through.
Their desperation for this plan is so sad yet also horrifying.
I hate this all so much. What a sick joke this hate-filled, right wing nut job bunch of incompetent libertarian nobodies are.
I don’t think they ever mentioned this kinda sh1t during the last election. How the he’ll have we elected such criminals
Fun fact were the UK to leave the ECHR they would immediately be excluded from EU law enforcement agreement protocols and basically be unable to extradite wanted criminals back to the UK because said criminals could credibly argue in court their human rights were in danger.
Likewise no access to criminal databases, information sharing or warrant enforcement co operation
Seems like a great deal if you are say a white collar criminal on the run from the UK
Leaving the ECHR should be put to a referendum. It’s as massive as leaving the EU with how it can impact our lives.
This is a bit like those idiots who decide they don’t consent to the laws of the land, so will only obey an Admiral, just to get out of parking tickets.
If ECHR causes problems with your legislation, then the legislation is problem not ECHR.
Necessary..
Gotta protect their land.
Same as Braveman should stop this Rawanda Story.
They forget what took place in Uganda