Farage Thinks 2/3 Of Brits Want To Leave The Echr

[Hymie]

In his parliamentary speech, Farage suggested we have a referendum on this issue.

 

I’d be happy for such a referendum on our membership of the ECHR, on condition that only those who voted to leave lost their rights under the ECHR.

 

....and when those persons who voted to end our membership of the ECHR are jailed without a fair trial, I would be posting on here asking; why are you complaining, this is what you voted for.

 

There are a number of right-wing nut-jobs who agree with Farage, but ask yourself this: Would you trust the Labour government with your basic human rights?

 

[Hymie]

If we left the ECHR, it would be within the gift of any UK government to remove any or all of those rights we currently enjoy, as they see fit.

 

Given that the reason to leave is to remove some of those rights (otherwise why leave) – the purpose of being members is to ensure national governments cannot take away your human rights.

 

If you want to lose your human rights, campaign for us to leave the ECHR.

[davebro3]

46 countries are in it - the other 100 or so seem to manage quite well without...

[Old_Geezer]

Joining may have been to ensure common rights across nations, but one can not logically claim from that, that the reason for leaving would be to remove rights. Even speculation that, that may be the result, comes under the heading of 'unlikely conspiracy theory'.

 

The whole point, given that this legislation has deteriorated in interpretation/application over the years, is to get rid of all that is now proving inappropriate and to make it useful again. After we do, other nations then have the option of following the UK's good example, if they choose to, as they have on various occasions in the past.

[Khandro]

Hymie; Can you point to one example of where the ECHR has made a judgement which has benefitted a British citizen ?

If you can, I'll listen, but if you can't, - put a sock in it!

[Hymie]

See the link below – now that you know (over the years) that there have been many instances where the ECHR has made a judgement that benefitted British citizens, you will no doubt support the UK’s continued membership (as will all other ABers).

 

https://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/the-uks-echr-record-how-common-are-rule-39-orders-and-how-often-is-the-uk-found-to-have-violated-rights/

[New Judge]

"See the link below – now that you know (over the years) that there have been many instances where the ECHR has made a judgement that benefitted British citizens, you will no doubt support the UK’s continued membership (as will all other ABers)."

No I  would not.

In 2023 the UK was subject to three judgements by the ECHR (page 112 of the ECHR's report). In two of those cases no violation was found. In one - just one - the UK had been found to have transgressed. This was under the very vague and nebulous Article 8 (the right to respect for family and private life).

Of course you could argue that it is precisely because the UK is subject to the jurisdiction of the ECHR that it is so compliant with its principles. But that doesn't quite hold water.

In that same year (2023) the court delivered verdicts on 892 cases where it found at least one violation. Of these, 217 (almost 25%) were against the Russian Federation. Within these, it found 140 breaches of Article 3 (Inhuman & Degrading Treatment); 168 of Article 5 (the right to Liberty & security) and 138 violations of Article 6 (the right to a fair trial). If compliance was due solely to being under the ECHR's jurisdicion there would not have been 891 other cases - some with serious violations - recorded by the court.

The ECHR was established after WW2 to prevent mistreatment of citizens by over-zealous states. It was never required in the UK but obviously the UK needed to become a signatory to encourage everybody else - who may have developed an over-zealous state machine -  to do likewise. That need has now passed.

The UK has a competent, robust and fair legal system which is largely untroubled by political interference. Nobody in criminal proceedings, or in almost all civil matters, is subject to the decision of a single court or tribunal. It has a constitution which makes the imposition of a dictatorial or despotic regime almost impossible. Most importantly it has its own domestic Human Rights Act which virtually mirrors the ECHR. All this makes the ECHR as far as the UK goes utterly redundant. The UK Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of matters concerning the rights of UK ciizens.

You have still not told us what rights you believe would be lost if the UK withdrew from the ECHR. I can only assume that you simply do not trust the UK's judiciary and its government to protect its citizens rights and that you believe only the ECHR can do that. If that is the case, I can only point you to the report you cited. There are 47 signatories to the ECHR and comparing the compliance figures for the best (the UK) and the worst (the Russian Federation) seems to suggest that some other factors may be in play.

[sandyRoe]

If the ECHR does nothing for the citizens of the countries who subscribe to it, why does it exist at all?

[jourdain2]

Probably well-paid sinecures for a coterie, sandyr.

[Khandro]

Sandy //If the ECHR does nothing for the citizens of the countries who subscribe to it, why does it exist at all?//

Well it's very good at giving support too illegal migrants - I'm sure that meets your approval - does it ?

Hymie; see NJ above - put that in your pipe and smoke it ! 😄  

[Ellipsis]

> It was never required in the UK but obviously the UK needed to become a signatory to encourage everybody else - who may have developed an over-zealous state machine - to do likewise. That need has now passed.

Really? I think, at best, you can say that those who ... have developed an over-zealous state machine take no notice of it, so why should we ...

[davebro3]

//If the ECHR does nothing for the citizens of the countries who subscribe to it, why does it exist at all?//

Puzzling isn't it. I can only think that it's "jobs for the boys".

[jourdain2]

We agree then davebro....  (see 18.16 post).  :)

[New Judge]

"Really? I think, at best, you can say that those who ... have developed an over-zealous state machine take no notice of it, so why should we"

Exactly, ellipsis. That's a far better way to put it.

The citizens of those countries which routinely violate its provisions need its protection but they are not getting it because their States have no intention of complying with it. 

Meanwhile citizens of the nations which do, by and large comply have no need of it, but their governments are burdened with the bureacracy of being a signatory to a Convention which they have absolutely no need of.

The UK does take notice of it - to such an extent that it introduced domestic legislation which largely duplicates it. So there is no need for us to be subject to a foreign court.

[Peter Pedant]

oh god I hate it when the so called Great and Good who lead us, suggest a referendum.... THEY have been elected to change things, not set up yet more checks and committees

[perseverer]

08.31 post.

46 countries out of 48 are signatories to the European CHR. All except Russia and Belarus.

[Deskdiary]

Once again Hymie brings a spoon to a gun fight.

 

In a perverse way I kind of admire Hymie, in so far as he must know he's routinely wrong and doesn't possess the intellectual ability to argue his view, and yet he perseveres regardless.

[Old_Geezer]

I think occasional referenda are great, since politicians don't tend to believe in the nation having democracy, but only those elected to the House, it is the only time the genuine will of the people is openly expressed and the politicians refuse it at their own risk.

 

To demonstrate the point, every voter in the UK now knows that the party that call themselves democrats are in fact opposed to the public having their say. A bit like nations that have the word "democratic" in it's name.

 

Of course the subject of a referendum needs to be carefully selected as it costs to try to keep these career politicians on the straight & narrow.

[Ellipsis]

> The citizens of those countries which routinely violate its provisions need its protection but they are not getting it because their States have no intention of complying with it. 

> Meanwhile citizens of the nations which do, by and large comply have no need of it, but their governments are burdened with the bureacracy of being a signatory to a Convention which they have absolutely no need of.

It's the difference between being a leader and a follower, being opted in and opted out, being one of the gang and being a loner; the difference between being dependent, independent or interdependent. 

[davebro3]

If only 47 or so nations think that an overarching HR court is necessary and/or desirable but 100+ don't, who are the INS & who the OUTS?