"Protecting human rights in the UK"

[Hairyloon]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/int ... l-document

[Slartibartfast]

Michael Gove has been brought back to a frontline Cabinet role to oversee controversial Conservative plans to scrap the Human Rights Act. The former chief whip has been appointed as Justice Secretary – where plans will be drawn up to replace the European legislation with a British bill of rights.

http://news.sky.com/story/1480979/micha ... -secretary

The idiots are actually going to do it. Withdrawing from international human rights governance places us with rogue states like Somalia, North Korea and the USA, and I suppose that will be the truth of it. UK citizens will have no means of protection against the state except what the state chooses to permit to them.

[Hairyloon]

The idiots are actually going to do it. Withdrawing from international human rights governance places us with rogue states...

Did you read the document?
They do not intend to withdraw from the ECHR:

The UK stands by the commitments made when we signed the Convention, and it is only the subsequent approach of the Court and Labour’s Human Rights Act that have eroded public confidence in our human rights framework. It would be wrong to renounce the Convention unilaterally when it is not our principled commitment to fundamental human rights that has changed. We would like the UK to remain a party to the Convention, as part of our membership of the Council of Europe. We hope, therefore, that the Council will recognise these changes to our Human Rights laws.
 During the passage of the British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, we will engage with the Council of Europe, and seek recognition that our approach is a legitimate way of applying the Convention.
 In the event that we are unable to reach that agreement, the UK would be left with no alternative but to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, at the point at
which our Bill comes into effect. We would do so safe in the knowledge that the text of the Convention itself is enshrined in our own statutes, protecting human rights in line with the will of the British Parliament and the rulings of British Courts.

It seems to me to be mostly posturing for political point scoring purposes.

[Smouldering Stoat]

Of course they intend to withdraw. The natural consequence of their policies will be that we will left in a position where our domestic position is incompatible with our continuing membership. They are trying to put us in that position to make it politically and diplomatically easier to withdraw.

[Slartibartfast]

Stoaty is right, this purported negotiation is a cynical sham.

It would be a legal and moral absurdity for the UK state to decide what duties the UK state had towards citizens, and for the UK state to decide whether the UK state had breached those duties. It is a proposal to be above the law, equivalent to me saying that I do not think that speed limits have been sensibly applied by the UK police, so I am going to withdraw my recognition of the Road Traffic Act and instead comply with my own rules as I choose to interpret them.

It may be legally possible for the UK state to do this, because no greater power can force compliance. But they know they will not do it with the blessings or support of ECHR partners. They know that there will be no "recognition that our approach is a legitimate way of applying the Convention". Just as the UK Police will never agree to me adjudicating my own culpability for speeding.

They intend that the ECHR partners will protest loudly at this ridiculous proposal, hopefully in a way which can be spun as an insult to UK sovereignty. Then they can say that they have been left with no alternative because of the intransigence of these filthy, interfering foreigners who think that they should have power over our decent honest British way of life.

[Hairyloon]

It is a proposal to be above the law, equivalent to me saying that I do not think that speed limits have been sensibly applied by the UK police, so I am going to withdraw my recognition of the Road Traffic Act and instead comply with my own rules as I choose to interpret them.

I don't think it is, it is more like you saying: don't bother with all those speed cameras and suchlike, I promise not to speed and I'll send you my GPS tachograph data instead.

If we take them at face value, and the ECHR accept their proposals then we will still have recourse to go to the European Court.

[Smouldering Stoat]

As the Spartans said, "If."

And even if so, we will need to have recourse to that Court, because we will no longer have a domestic remedy.

[Slartibartfast]

It is a proposal to be above the law, equivalent to me saying that I do not think that speed limits have been sensibly applied by the UK police, so I am going to withdraw my recognition of the Road Traffic Act and instead comply with my own rules as I choose to interpret them.

I don't think it is, it is more like you saying: don't bother with all those speed cameras and suchlike, I promise not to speed and I'll send you my GPS tachograph data instead.

We might promise to send our GPS tachograph data, but only on the understanding that the ECHR has no jurisdiction or authority. What exactly would be the point of that?

If we take them at face value, and the ECHR accept their proposals then we will still have recourse to go to the European Court.

I don't think you have fully understood the government's proposals -

Our reforms will mean that:
- The European Court of Human Rights is no longer binding over the UK Supreme Court.
- The European Court of Human Rights is no longer able to order a change in UK law and becomes an advisory body only.

So what purpose or value will arise from having recourse to a court which has no authority?

[Hairyloon]

If we do not withdraw from the ECHR and your rights are breached, then you can take your case to the European court who may award compensation.

[Slartibartfast]

If we do not withdraw from the ECHR and your rights are breached, then you can take your case to the European court who may award compensation.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by stating the bleedin' obvious...
If we don't withdraw then nothing changes and I have the same rights?

I think that we perhaps need to disambiguate 'European Convention on Human Rights' and 'European Court of Human Rights'.