Eu Laws Repeal

[fender62]

is it going to be a copy and paste existing eu laws into new uk laws ? as there are just to many laws to take into account and the time it would take. repeal the human rights act would be a good starting point and have our own.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/785773/Great-Repeal-Bill-latest-updates-Brexit-David-Davis-EU-laws-Henry-VIII-powers-Brussels

[sp1814]

The Human Rights Act has nothing to do with the EU.

Nothing at all.

[Kromovaracun]

If I'm not mistaken, the Human Rights Act is not part of EU law.

(I think it's also technically speaking "our own" already, as it's an implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights)

[sp1814]

Kromovaracun

Spot on.

It's our own Act (from 1998), and it gives us rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights.

From Wikipedia:

The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

fender62 - in answer to your question on other acts which are part of UK law, it will be down to the Government to decide which should stay and which will be dropped.

The Government will also need to decide whether existing Acts need to be redefined.

It's going to take some time.

[fender62]

i was going to say, there are an awful lot of laws...that i assume could take years to go through, im not in the legal profession..just assuming

[New Judge]

Absolutely correct.

The European Convention on Human Rights was introduced in 1953, some four years before the EU (or the EEC as it was founded) was established. Similarly the European Court of Human Rights (the arbiter on ECHR matters) has no connection with the EU.

The UK's own 1998 Human Rights Act largely incorporates all the provisions of the ECHR into domestic law and to see and end to the abuse such legislation is clearly open to the UK would have to withdraw as a signatory to the ECHR and repeal our own 1998 Act. Neither of these is likely. The Tories have made noises about it at various times during the last seven or eight years but, unsurprisingly, action came their none.

[New Judge]

And a further drawback worth mentioning is that although our own 1998 Act was introduced to eliminate the need for appellants to go the the Strasbourg Court to seek remedy, effectively all it has done is provided them with two bites of the cherry. After exhausting a case in the UK's Supreme Court (under the 1998 Act) appellants are free to petition the Strasbourg Court as the UK is still bound by its decisions. Anybody with any sense, when introducing our own Act, would have seen to it that the UK withdrew from the Convention. But UK politicians seem deleriously happy to see final arbitration ins such matters in the hands foreign judges (some from countries with, shall we be kind and say "less than ideal" views on Human Rights) sitting in a foreign court.

[ToraToraTora]

no, as our anti UK friends often tell us, EU law is supreme and as such is incorporated into UK law anyway, thus you can think of it as primarily a bulk edit of terminology. Imagine a company merger in reverse, all the logos have to be changed, new stationary, remove some signs etc, bit like that. At the same time they'll ditch the *** we don't need like 2257/94 for example.

[youngmafbog]

I want my bananas bent TTT.

[youngmafbog]

I may well be wrong but I thought that contracting to the convention Required under the Treaty of Lisbon (you know the one we were surreptitiously signed up to)

[ToraToraTora]

you felon, it'll be bent cucumbers next!