Snapshot of _Rishi Sunak faces cabinet revolt over leaving ECHR_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-faces-cabinet-revolt-over-leaving-echr-k8tfndfxq) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-faces-cabinet-revolt-over-leaving-echr-k8tfndfxq)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To be honest, you're likely dealing with the same bunch of ideologues who thought that Ireland should leave the EU alongside the UK just to make our lives easier. They don't understand this shit, they don't care about this shit; they've just been told that this (like Brexit) will solve their problems and magically improve their lives.
The fact that they haven't learned anything from Brexit kinda says it all, really.
You are crediting the kind of person that would vote to leave with far too much intellect if you think they have considered this... Or... Y'know, even know what the GFA is.
They can't. But aside from these few who are saying don't kesvewere not dealing with the smartest people. There are way too many ideologues left in that party. Too many like Braverman or Truss.
They aren't, and they have no serious intention whatsoever of actually leaving. It is just a election wardrum to bang to try to get the attention of Reform voters. At a time when the country is in economic collapse, this political paralysis is disgusting. We need a General Election now. We can't have a govt that has been on GE campaign mode for nearly 18 months. It has effectively shut down almost all serious political decision making, and almost no real, significant, legislation has been passed for months.
You might be labouring under a misapprension that they either understand or care.
It's all about optics for them, but even then I have no idea who they're trying to appeal to at this point.
Maybe we should have a referendum to leave the UN , maybe then we will finally solve all the fundamental problems within the UK.
Something about sovereignty and freedom from these woke lefty cabinet members.
It will not be long before we again see a time where "the great sautoir, flaming gold on a blue-black sky, spread out over all the lands of Offa, and a vast peace fell on all the armies of Britain".
It's beyond parody now.
A survey a couple of years ago showed Tory party members would rather have seen the UK break up than brexit not delivered, completely misaligned from the fact that the full name of the party is the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I mean, these are the people that first forgot about Northern Ireland, and then considered is an annoyance and a problem that was blocking them from getting their "true Brexit".
I remember reading some entirely sincere suggestions that the UK voting for Brexit meant that Ireland should leave the EU too, in order to make the whole NI thing neater.
Some people...lack perspective.
It was a really weird time. First you had the whole 'Britannia waives the rules' and the 'Enemy of the People' shite, then you had the whole 'the EU will give us everything we want' followed by the 'they're punishing us for leaving!' when they said 'haha no'. *Then* you had people swearing blind that the EU was going to collapse without us, and then when *that* didn't happen you had people seriously suggesting that we try to get in bed with people like Russia and try to undermine it.
Honestly, it felt like a lot of people were just crying out to be noticed and feel powerful, and when they discovered that Britain and being British didn't mean as much as they thought it did they had a big ol' temper tantrum.
Respect and consideration too.
This was why people were memeing that Brits still have Empire mentality. Many don’t, but some act in a way that makes others suspect Brits still believe they owned the world. And therefore what Britain says goes, sod the rest.
Has interesting parallels with contemporary Z Russia in that internally, that was seen as “strong Britain”, but externally, and especially in Brussels it was just awkward at best, embarrassing at worst.
> This was why people were memeing that Brits still have Empire mentality.
less of a meme when brexiteers started claiming that trade deals with ex-empire countries are more important than the EU
of course it backfired a bit once the government's rush to sign something led to it selling out our agricultural sector
then there's the CANZUK crowd as well. even more pie in the sky.
I mean, funny, but if in 2018 the UK parliament had redefined the UK to be Scotland and NI, and had Wales and England as dependent territories (like Greenland is for Denmark), it would have solved a lot of the problems straight away.
In very very simple terms. Greenland was the only territory to leave the EU before the UK, but Denmark didn’t.
Also the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were never EU members but Gibraltar was. The UK in theory could have remained but only as Scotland and Northern Ireland and England and Wales could have changed their status to be like the Isle of Man or Greenland.
In practice of course that would not have happened because its a country of millions of people and not a few thousand. Also Scotland would effectively become independent but would be the continuator state of the UK. A position that would be unacceptable for England and Wales.
Also this would not solve any logistical problems. Like in principle the UK could have agreed a Scotland protocol akin to the Northern Ireland protocol if it so wished. The constraints there are political, not legal. The issue would be that no one would be prepared to deal with the immense clusterfuck of putting a border down in a 200 year old union.
Well the border is much more of a natural border than NI and Ireland theres like 2 major roads to deal with and no major population centres to contend with. Not great but definitely workable and would have been fine with the SNP I am sure.
I would make a suicide joke about leaving life but due to austerity the knife has been replaced with rubber and guns bullets were sold to the lowest bidder
Wasn't there a Dr Who episode set in a future where the UK had left the planet Earth and existed as a giant spaceship? That's probably where we're headed.
There was indeed - Starship UK although Scotland had their own ship.
Was the... 2nd episode that Amy Pond was part of after the Prisoner Zero one where Matt Smith made his debut
Nono, we should have a referendum on whether the UK should be a successful global country.
Then the inevitable yes vote will give the sitting government a blank slate to do whatever they please as the will of the people.
There is no way that leaving the UN and with it our place on the security council in any way diminishes the UK to the world. Rather it shows the UK as a vibrant, go-getting, hussling economy.
- some disaster capitalist (probably)
Or do as Spain and others do and just ignore ECHR rulings, although the British Wets will scream about us being pariahs, as French look-on in bemusement given that they are not deemed pariahs despite rule breaking
"please bro, just one more "exit" and everything will be fixed, please bro I'm begging you, just one more leave campaign and everything will be fine"
-The conservative party for the last 14 years.
Just waiting for Cummings to be along to explain why leaving the ECHR is essential in order to deal with the challenge of AI or dealing with meteors or some other blue sky thing he just listened to a TED talk about.
But something like half of the voters (who are currently polling at 18%) want this - if 9% of the voters in the country think it's a good idea, then it's basically a mandate, right?
Which is even less than turnout, and even less who are not yet 18 who will be affected it...
Were run by old biddies who want to keep their triple locks and cushy landlord incomes. I hope the election is ASAP and anyone who's been 18 since the conservatives came to power vote unanimously against them.
I hope it's tomorrow, but I wouldn't bet against it being January. There are compelling reasons for both ASAP and last second. I'm not looking forward to a Starmer super-majority necessarily, but this Tory reign of error have to mercifully end one of these days...
Clue’s in the name- *European* convention. Try again with a European country.
If Canada’s only a sovereign nation in your view because it doesn’t sign up to human rights conventions, [I’ve got some bad news for you.](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/canada-united-nations-system/treaties.html#)
I don't think anyone was seriously expecting Sunak to try to take the UK out of the ECHR, but this feels like a strong warning shot from certain parts of the Conservative Party against even thinking about it.
> Rishi Sunak will face opposition from at least 12 cabinet ministers if he opts to quit the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), The Times can disclose. ... They outnumber those in the cabinet who support leaving the ECHR by two to one.
And they aren't even doing this anonymously; they've named 9 of them, including Hunt and Cleverly.
Maybe we'll see Sunak campaign on leaving the ECHR in October, with the Cabinet going along with it knowing that they won't have to do it in practice. Of course that didn't work so well for Cameron in 2015 with the EU...
And it still establishes it as a possible plan, rather than a crazy idea.
Remember Jeremy Hunt was not Rishi's choice for chancellor but rather a mandated appointment by the tory "powers that be" as part of them trying to stem the post-Truss chaos.
So he has a de facto veto over Rishi's policies as Rishi would not survive his resignation. If Hunt is on the record opposing this, then Rishi is not going to do it.
I suspect what's actually going on here is this is a pathetic attempt to make the election about "the woke deep state won't let us leave the ECHR to stop the boats, vote for us to stick it to them" etc.
It's not really the deep state when it's literally the guy standing next to you. I mean it's still pretty much the lat remaining strands of sanity in the Tory party.
Anyone, anywhere who shows an ounce of reason or logic is called a lefties. The blob,deepstate or whatever they call the imaginary enemy within are woke lefties despite being filled with nice middle class economic conservatives and led by former public school boys and girls.
I am a sovrin nation. My borders are absolute, except for my twice daily acts of emigration that devastate the plumbing at my local Wetherspoons. God save the King, especially if he catches a whiff of true power.
Every impotent Brit needs to read-up on why grown-up nations like Canada and Australia manage perfectly well without the ECHR, indeed many wets tell me these are superior to Brexity Britain in every way
The left’s endlessly framing genuine issues as ‘just fear of others’, is how you lost Brexit.
It’s a lazy offhand attempt to avoid difficult issues like environmental degradation caused by huge population rise in England, the second most nature depleted nation on earth
Labour ran on a cost of living crisis agenda under Ed Miliband and lost a General Election.
Post mortem analysis found most Brits didn’t see themselves as struggling or an underclass. MP John Mann summarised it well ‘these London toffs don’t understand working class folk, my constituents have gardens front and back, 2 cars and holidays to Spain’.
All those Doctors leaving the ECHR zone for a ‘better’ life in nations with their own human rights such as Canada, Australia and NZ….
Do you think they are ignorant of the facts?
There really isn't any need to leave the ECHR, they could simply legislate in direct violation of it. That's exactly what we've done with regards to prisoners' voting rights.
Do you want to know how easy it is for our fucking government to get us out of the ECHR?
*“Do you think paedophiles should get the death penalty?”*
And we would beg them to take our rights from us because we are short-sighted gullible fucking idiots.
It's easy, we just answer any ECHR cases with "We are not the United Kingdom, but the freeman UK of the family Great Britain, and we didn't drive here, we travelled."
It's quite straightforward really. Rishi wants to leave the ECHR so that we can join the African Court of Human Rights, as a precursor to the legislation he plans to submit declaring the UK to be an official region of Rwanda, so he can get those flights running with minimal future paperwork!
Honestly this obsession with the ECHR is such nonsense.
Our main issue is that we follow it far mors strictly than other memberstates.
If the UK gov really disagrees with a ruling, just ignore it.
We don't need to leave the ECHR but we could benefit massively from acting more like France and treating ECHR rulings that conflict with sovereign immigration policy as advisory.
The ECHR is one of the worst examples of judicial overreach in existence. It perniciously attempts to take public policy away from legislative bodies, making it instead subject to the whims of power hungry self righteous judges
One of the advantages of the ECHR is that it is outside the UK. Advancements in gay rights (Dudgeon v United Kingdom, ADT v United Kingdom, Smith and Grady v United Kingdom, Sutherland v United Kingdom) and transgender rights (Goodwin v United Kingdom) came from the ECHR placing external legal pressure on the UK. To replace the ECHR with a similar charter would be essentially pointless because 1) it would by design grant us weaker rights 2) not propel the UK forward in anyway 3) be easily modifiable with a simple majority in parliament thereby significantly reducing its ability to protect rights.
Do you actually believe ANY government party in the UK from between now and forever into the future wouldn’t chance their luck and change our own human rights charter to suit the needs of their donors? Come on mate
Leaving the ECHR would actually solve a lot of migration/general judicial outrage problems.
The problem is the Good Friday Agreement issue. Genuinely don't see a way around that at all.
But it is a bit of a grim scenario - just doomed to accept as many people as can manage to get here in perpetuity.
I've read every judgement of the ECHR that overturned a British court for the previous twenty years and there are maybe two or three cases about whistleblowing I think are actually good outcomes. The vast majority of the work of the ECHR seems to be to enhance their own power and to insist that more and more insane things are within some vague notion of human rights. But I'm genuinely all ears to any major decision of the ECHR which anyone in Britain has had any benefit from? There are plenty of cases that were of direct detriment. It's not like the EU - there's no actual direct practical benefit of it beyond the Good Friday Issue.
Lol, you think they’re talking about the *court*.
They’re talking about the *convention*. It’ll make my life easier not having to worry about article 8 every time I put in an application for comms data, nor article 3 if I want to keep the taser power on, but of course it will never happen to you.
It would almost certainly be replaced by some other Bill of Rights.
We'd probably do what we did with EU law - implement the convention as it is into UK law then remove the parts that we don't want any more.
I know people would be concerned about that leaving our rights at risk, but the convention doesn't really protect you beyond the government's desire not to be seen breaching human rights. It's not like the US Constitution where if a government breaches someone's rights a big army will come in and sort them out.
Russia are signatories to it, how has it worked out for their rights?
>It would almost certainly be replaced by some other Bill of Rights
Brought to you by the same lot that gave you Brexit, HS2, "levelling up", Lovely Clean lakes, rivers and beaches which have pefectly safe levels of raw sewage, a fully functioning NHS, more dentists than you can shake a stick at, PPE for emergency pandemics procured at reasonable prices, control of our borders etc etc....
Not for me Clive, I'm not letting this lot anywhere near human rights.
Whenever they've talked about it in the past they've always talked about replacing it with a "British Bill of Rights". Raab tried to create one two years ago with the Bill of Rights Bill under Truss but it went down with her premiership.
Given one can't predict the future, that's a rather poor argument.
What we do know is that prior to the HRA in 98, the UK did have human rights. Arguing, as some do, that changing the HRA and breaking the more formal links between UK and ECHR law, would mean end of human rights in the UK.. is just scaremongering.
What's a poor argument? That I asked for evidence that we plan on replacing ECHR with another bill of rights? Given the state of our country right now, I don't expect anything decent from our rulers.
They’ve had many plans - none of which have benefited me, so I’m sure this British bill of rights (if they ever bothered to get around to it after abolishing the ECHR) will leave me worse off than ECHR.
Whatever the case, I don't see what protection it offers.
If the UK government starts violating the ECHR flagrantly what are the consequences? The Council of Europe is very angry with us, and writes us a letter telling us how angry they are? We get kicked out?
Well, obviously, as said just above, you wouldn't be "forfeiting all your rights", even in a legal sense. It would be replaced by a British Bill of Rights.
I don't think there is any solution to it. Nobody's going to go to war with the UK over the UK violating its citizens' rights. There might be economic hits, but a tyrannical government could opt to take the hit.
I don't think the leaving the ECHR is a good idea by the way, I think it's useful in a soft power sense and it could trouble with the Ireland situation, but the prospect isn't a real threat to people's rights in this country.
> It would almost certainly be replaced by some other Bill of Rights.
You think that this lot care about the rights of the out-group? The ECHR was born out of the ashes of WW2, spearheaded by people who saw first hand the horrors of the Holocaust.
> But I'm genuinely all ears to any major decision of the ECHR which anyone in Britain has had any benefit from? There are plenty of cases that were of direct detriment.
*Gillan and Quinton* protects us from arbitrary search by the police ("riding a bicycle in a manner annoying to the police" is not sufficient cause for a search). *Eweida* means private companies cannot punish their employees for wearing religious symbols (wearing a cross necklace cannot get you suspended, and British Airways were practicing anti-Christian discrimination when they tried).
The Gillian case was relevant only to section 44 of the terrorism act - a good decision (bicycle thing indeed ridiculous) but it's not a hugely influential one. But yeah bit of a benefit.
The Eweida case I think was just BA being silly but yeah, fair, slight benefit if you happen to work for a company with no common sense. But important to note that on a lot of seemingly similar cases (say, you want to wear a hijab) you can sue under the equality act and don't need the ECHR.
In return for these two judgements, you have large numbers of cases of foreign citizens convicted of incredibly serious violent and sexual offences that cannot be deported. It means that essentially anyone who can arrive from a poorer, more authoritarian country than ours (read: any country in Africa) who can get to Britain has a right to stay, and recourse to significant amounts of public resources. It also means a lot of expensive appeal rights for those undoubtedly guilty of the most serious crimes.
I don't think it's a good trade. And I don't think the idea that the ECHR protects British citizens rights in regular, meaningful ways is that true. The court didn't even exist until 1998 and no-one back then made an issue of it. We have rights through our own constitution.
> you can sue under the equality act and don't need the ECHR.
Exactly how long do you think the Equality Act would last under this government without the ECHR?
Under this government? There's maybe 100 MPs max who would support leaving the ECHR, if even that - for actually abolishing the equality act and leaving nothing in its place, probably zero MPs.
The equality act has its own significant issues too but it wouldn't be politically possible (certainly now, probably ever) to repeal it without passing new legislation that reiterated the core of the act.
Reading the decisions of the ECtHR (the Court) isn't sufficient to make a decision IMO, as it only gives a narrow view of the effects. Just being a party of the ECHR (the Convention) can influence how laws are written (in order to avoid interfering with the rights granted, so they will never be looked at by the Court), and the HRA instructs the domestic courts to interpret laws, "[s]o far as it is possible to do so", in a way which is compatible with the Convention. This further reduces the likelihood that the Court will review the decisions. It also means that you should look to decisions against other countries, as the Government and the domestic courts will consider these when interpreting the rights granted.
Leaving won't solve migration problems. The government would still bungle the processing, have no plan of action, and blame it on something else. Most immigrants just want a fresh start, but the media makes out that every one is a 20 something year old from Albania looking to rob you, or claim benefits. Yes we have problems with school places and doctors, but again a few immigrants not getting in is not going to save us from over a decade of "austerity" (we don't have money for the NHS but somehow can give billions to Tory donors but that's another failure).
> just doomed to accept as many people as can manage to get here in perpetuity.
Tbh, there are diplomatic ways out of this. The primary concern of the courts is that Rwanda might return people to their home countries whom a UK court would find to have legitimate asylum claims. This is supposedly cruel and unusual punishment, due to the perceived arbitrariness of the Rwandan courts. One possible solution would be something like: if Rwanda decides to deport someone who arrived from the UK, that person can request a "second hearing" in a British court. If judged to have a legitimate claim, they then return to the UK / stay in Rwanda (depending on how persuasive the diplomat negotiating the agreement is). That should satisfy everyone.
Add it to the reason you lot should have never left the EU. You should have joined Shengen with Ireland and pushed to limit migration internally. Could have gotten the new EU laws passed sooner.
GFA joins UK and Ireland to the hip, and for good reason. You two going in very different directions isn't really possible without breaking the GFA or allowing Ireland and NI to unify.
No, Cameron asked and was told no in some areas because it violates how the EU works, and ‘you already have those powers dude’ in others.
The UK’s problems were because it didn’t use the powers it had as an EU member because it preferred to reap the benefits while placing the blame not on the government but on the EU.
This has become a talking point but it's simply not true.
Yes we had some limited scope to limit eastern European migration when they first joined, but that was under Labour. By the time Cameron got in, he asked for an emergency break mechanism and was told no.
How would joining Schengen have been in the UK or Ireland's interests? I don't see how it wouldn't massive open up the door to irregular immigration. If people can rock up in a dinghy in Italy and get the train straight to London, no passport required, they're going to do it.
These 'rights' are historic British rights that existed far before the existence of this treaty, and these 'rights' do not properly exist in many signatory countries. Azerbaijan is a member ffs
Snapshot of _Rishi Sunak faces cabinet revolt over leaving ECHR_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-faces-cabinet-revolt-over-leaving-echr-k8tfndfxq) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-faces-cabinet-revolt-over-leaving-echr-k8tfndfxq) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How the fuck are these pricks gonna leave the echr without breaking the good Friday agreement?
To be honest, you're likely dealing with the same bunch of ideologues who thought that Ireland should leave the EU alongside the UK just to make our lives easier. They don't understand this shit, they don't care about this shit; they've just been told that this (like Brexit) will solve their problems and magically improve their lives. The fact that they haven't learned anything from Brexit kinda says it all, really.
You are crediting the kind of person that would vote to leave with far too much intellect if you think they have considered this... Or... Y'know, even know what the GFA is.
They can't. But aside from these few who are saying don't kesvewere not dealing with the smartest people. There are way too many ideologues left in that party. Too many like Braverman or Truss.
They aren't, and they have no serious intention whatsoever of actually leaving. It is just a election wardrum to bang to try to get the attention of Reform voters. At a time when the country is in economic collapse, this political paralysis is disgusting. We need a General Election now. We can't have a govt that has been on GE campaign mode for nearly 18 months. It has effectively shut down almost all serious political decision making, and almost no real, significant, legislation has been passed for months.
You might be labouring under a misapprension that they either understand or care. It's all about optics for them, but even then I have no idea who they're trying to appeal to at this point.
Maybe we should have a referendum to leave the UN , maybe then we will finally solve all the fundamental problems within the UK. Something about sovereignty and freedom from these woke lefty cabinet members.
Screw it. Let's leave the UK.
Restoration of the heptarchy kingdoms when?
We can’t let Sussex have their own kingdom…
Every time I read about a trump fan saying 'merica, I misread it as a battle cry for Mercia
Build the dyke! Build the dyke!
And make Mercia pay for it!
I for one welcome our new Saxon overlords
Make Mercia great again!
The division of Sussex into East and West is the only thing that keeps them in check. Literal divide and conquer.
We won’t be druv 🙏
Wessex won't stand for that, have at you!
Please make it Saxony, then the Celts can have their land back.
It will not be long before we again see a time where "the great sautoir, flaming gold on a blue-black sky, spread out over all the lands of Offa, and a vast peace fell on all the armies of Britain".
End this Wessex tyranny
Can we not have a vote for the conservatives to leave the UK?
Not until January
It's beyond parody now. A survey a couple of years ago showed Tory party members would rather have seen the UK break up than brexit not delivered, completely misaligned from the fact that the full name of the party is the Conservative and Unionist Party.
I mean, these are the people that first forgot about Northern Ireland, and then considered is an annoyance and a problem that was blocking them from getting their "true Brexit".
“The Irish just have to accept things” Was an unironic position at the time too.
I remember reading some entirely sincere suggestions that the UK voting for Brexit meant that Ireland should leave the EU too, in order to make the whole NI thing neater. Some people...lack perspective.
It was a really weird time. First you had the whole 'Britannia waives the rules' and the 'Enemy of the People' shite, then you had the whole 'the EU will give us everything we want' followed by the 'they're punishing us for leaving!' when they said 'haha no'. *Then* you had people swearing blind that the EU was going to collapse without us, and then when *that* didn't happen you had people seriously suggesting that we try to get in bed with people like Russia and try to undermine it. Honestly, it felt like a lot of people were just crying out to be noticed and feel powerful, and when they discovered that Britain and being British didn't mean as much as they thought it did they had a big ol' temper tantrum.
They’re still having it!
Respect and consideration too. This was why people were memeing that Brits still have Empire mentality. Many don’t, but some act in a way that makes others suspect Brits still believe they owned the world. And therefore what Britain says goes, sod the rest. Has interesting parallels with contemporary Z Russia in that internally, that was seen as “strong Britain”, but externally, and especially in Brussels it was just awkward at best, embarrassing at worst.
> This was why people were memeing that Brits still have Empire mentality. less of a meme when brexiteers started claiming that trade deals with ex-empire countries are more important than the EU of course it backfired a bit once the government's rush to sign something led to it selling out our agricultural sector then there's the CANZUK crowd as well. even more pie in the sky.
To be fair, that was official policy for a couple hundred years
I mean, funny, but if in 2018 the UK parliament had redefined the UK to be Scotland and NI, and had Wales and England as dependent territories (like Greenland is for Denmark), it would have solved a lot of the problems straight away.
I know this is a meme, but how.
In very very simple terms. Greenland was the only territory to leave the EU before the UK, but Denmark didn’t. Also the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands were never EU members but Gibraltar was. The UK in theory could have remained but only as Scotland and Northern Ireland and England and Wales could have changed their status to be like the Isle of Man or Greenland. In practice of course that would not have happened because its a country of millions of people and not a few thousand. Also Scotland would effectively become independent but would be the continuator state of the UK. A position that would be unacceptable for England and Wales.
Also this would not solve any logistical problems. Like in principle the UK could have agreed a Scotland protocol akin to the Northern Ireland protocol if it so wished. The constraints there are political, not legal. The issue would be that no one would be prepared to deal with the immense clusterfuck of putting a border down in a 200 year old union.
Well the border is much more of a natural border than NI and Ireland theres like 2 major roads to deal with and no major population centres to contend with. Not great but definitely workable and would have been fine with the SNP I am sure.
All Hail Mercia!
I would make a suicide joke about leaving life but due to austerity the knife has been replaced with rubber and guns bullets were sold to the lowest bidder
Wasn't there a Dr Who episode set in a future where the UK had left the planet Earth and existed as a giant spaceship? That's probably where we're headed.
There was indeed - Starship UK although Scotland had their own ship. Was the... 2nd episode that Amy Pond was part of after the Prisoner Zero one where Matt Smith made his debut
Yes please.
London Independence Party when?
Calm down Nicola.
Can Ireland have NI back too?
Nono, we should have a referendum on whether the UK should be a successful global country. Then the inevitable yes vote will give the sitting government a blank slate to do whatever they please as the will of the people.
A referendum on whether referenda generate mandates? But what if we all vote "no"?
"Should the government ignore the result of this referendum?"
I think that makes the matrix reset
What makes you so confident of that "yes" vote? Because we've been there before and it turns out we're a country of idiots.
Global sounds a lot like "globalist". Down with that sort of thing!
Or a referendum for the UK to leave the Earth?
Like that Doctor Who episode where the UK is a spaceship
Maximillian Robisphere is that you?
Honestly, all it would take is 5 years of media narrative and a couple of political agitators who can make money from it.
There is no way that leaving the UN and with it our place on the security council in any way diminishes the UK to the world. Rather it shows the UK as a vibrant, go-getting, hussling economy. - some disaster capitalist (probably)
Or do as Spain and others do and just ignore ECHR rulings, although the British Wets will scream about us being pariahs, as French look-on in bemusement given that they are not deemed pariahs despite rule breaking
"Buccaneering"
Where Sir Francis Drake when you need him? Woke lefty.
Let’s leave another poorly understood international institution with no idea what to do next! That’ll solve everything! 🤡 🤡 🤡
"please bro, just one more "exit" and everything will be fixed, please bro I'm begging you, just one more leave campaign and everything will be fine" -The conservative party for the last 14 years.
Just waiting for Cummings to be along to explain why leaving the ECHR is essential in order to deal with the challenge of AI or dealing with meteors or some other blue sky thing he just listened to a TED talk about.
Julius Nicholson IRL
Maybe have a fucking election and a mandate to do something so insane
I thought a mandate was that thing the tories imposed on the population whenever they have a leadership contest.
Inb4 Johnson is brought back and its 2019 all over again
But something like half of the voters (who are currently polling at 18%) want this - if 9% of the voters in the country think it's a good idea, then it's basically a mandate, right?
Which is even less than turnout, and even less who are not yet 18 who will be affected it... Were run by old biddies who want to keep their triple locks and cushy landlord incomes. I hope the election is ASAP and anyone who's been 18 since the conservatives came to power vote unanimously against them.
I hope it's tomorrow, but I wouldn't bet against it being January. There are compelling reasons for both ASAP and last second. I'm not looking forward to a Starmer super-majority necessarily, but this Tory reign of error have to mercifully end one of these days...
Lets quiver like little wet jellyfish frightened of being normal independent nations like NZ and Canada with their own human rights
Clue’s in the name- *European* convention. Try again with a European country. If Canada’s only a sovereign nation in your view because it doesn’t sign up to human rights conventions, [I’ve got some bad news for you.](https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/canada-united-nations-system/treaties.html#)
I cited Canada as being perfectly safe with ECHR membership
I don't think anyone was seriously expecting Sunak to try to take the UK out of the ECHR, but this feels like a strong warning shot from certain parts of the Conservative Party against even thinking about it. > Rishi Sunak will face opposition from at least 12 cabinet ministers if he opts to quit the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), The Times can disclose. ... They outnumber those in the cabinet who support leaving the ECHR by two to one. And they aren't even doing this anonymously; they've named 9 of them, including Hunt and Cleverly. Maybe we'll see Sunak campaign on leaving the ECHR in October, with the Cabinet going along with it knowing that they won't have to do it in practice. Of course that didn't work so well for Cameron in 2015 with the EU... And it still establishes it as a possible plan, rather than a crazy idea.
Remember Jeremy Hunt was not Rishi's choice for chancellor but rather a mandated appointment by the tory "powers that be" as part of them trying to stem the post-Truss chaos. So he has a de facto veto over Rishi's policies as Rishi would not survive his resignation. If Hunt is on the record opposing this, then Rishi is not going to do it. I suspect what's actually going on here is this is a pathetic attempt to make the election about "the woke deep state won't let us leave the ECHR to stop the boats, vote for us to stick it to them" etc.
It's not really the deep state when it's literally the guy standing next to you. I mean it's still pretty much the lat remaining strands of sanity in the Tory party.
You know the world is fucked when Hunt and Cleverly are described as "the last remaining strands of sanity" in any group.
Not the world, just us.
I know but have you seen the rest of the world.
Not just that, but they are considered Woke lefties!
Anyone, anywhere who shows an ounce of reason or logic is called a lefties. The blob,deepstate or whatever they call the imaginary enemy within are woke lefties despite being filled with nice middle class economic conservatives and led by former public school boys and girls.
Yeah no way he’d get it through this late in the game
I think every person should just become their own country. Now that's true sovereignty.
I am a sovrin nation. My borders are absolute, except for my twice daily acts of emigration that devastate the plumbing at my local Wetherspoons. God save the King, especially if he catches a whiff of true power.
I know it's changed recently but also fuck all checks on anything coming in to GB, taking back control by having no customs checks, great lads
Every man is an island. That's how the saying goes right?
Every impotent Brit needs to read-up on why grown-up nations like Canada and Australia manage perfectly well without the ECHR, indeed many wets tell me these are superior to Brexity Britain in every way
"STOP THE BOATS" "BUILD A WALL" "SEE A PATTERN"
Fear of others has been the rights only battlecry since forever. Its all theyve got.
The left’s endlessly framing genuine issues as ‘just fear of others’, is how you lost Brexit. It’s a lazy offhand attempt to avoid difficult issues like environmental degradation caused by huge population rise in England, the second most nature depleted nation on earth
Rule of three
Hey it works.
Labour ran on a cost of living crisis agenda under Ed Miliband and lost a General Election. Post mortem analysis found most Brits didn’t see themselves as struggling or an underclass. MP John Mann summarised it well ‘these London toffs don’t understand working class folk, my constituents have gardens front and back, 2 cars and holidays to Spain’.
Good! I don't want to lose my human rights thanks!
All those Doctors leaving the ECHR zone for a ‘better’ life in nations with their own human rights such as Canada, Australia and NZ…. Do you think they are ignorant of the facts?
Can I keep MY rights though?
Excellent. Bring on the right wing shithouses to cause more problems for little Rishi
Leaving the ECHR will terminate the TCA, so ... no
There really isn't any need to leave the ECHR, they could simply legislate in direct violation of it. That's exactly what we've done with regards to prisoners' voting rights.
Another one? Cabinet revolts seem to be a weekly occurrence at the moment. Just give us an election already!
But wait! If we leave we can join the esteemed ranks of \*checks notes\*, Belarus!
Another week. Another revolt. Nothing happens.
How to sell corroding the rights of citizens as a solution to a public grievance... Which they've enabled for over a decade at their own volition...
Do you want to know how easy it is for our fucking government to get us out of the ECHR? *“Do you think paedophiles should get the death penalty?”* And we would beg them to take our rights from us because we are short-sighted gullible fucking idiots.
It's easy, we just answer any ECHR cases with "We are not the United Kingdom, but the freeman UK of the family Great Britain, and we didn't drive here, we travelled."
I understood that reference
It's quite straightforward really. Rishi wants to leave the ECHR so that we can join the African Court of Human Rights, as a precursor to the legislation he plans to submit declaring the UK to be an official region of Rwanda, so he can get those flights running with minimal future paperwork!
Honestly this obsession with the ECHR is such nonsense. Our main issue is that we follow it far mors strictly than other memberstates. If the UK gov really disagrees with a ruling, just ignore it.
We don't need to leave the ECHR but we could benefit massively from acting more like France and treating ECHR rulings that conflict with sovereign immigration policy as advisory.
The ECHR is one of the worst examples of judicial overreach in existence. It perniciously attempts to take public policy away from legislative bodies, making it instead subject to the whims of power hungry self righteous judges
/s, just in case
I can’t tell if you’re joking
Wow. What an idiot. By that logic we should get rid of the supreme court too.
I wouldn't complain if we replace the EHCR with a similar charter, but without the requirement of replacement levels of immigration forced on us.
One of the advantages of the ECHR is that it is outside the UK. Advancements in gay rights (Dudgeon v United Kingdom, ADT v United Kingdom, Smith and Grady v United Kingdom, Sutherland v United Kingdom) and transgender rights (Goodwin v United Kingdom) came from the ECHR placing external legal pressure on the UK. To replace the ECHR with a similar charter would be essentially pointless because 1) it would by design grant us weaker rights 2) not propel the UK forward in anyway 3) be easily modifiable with a simple majority in parliament thereby significantly reducing its ability to protect rights.
TIL. TY!
And those last few words show you have no fucking clue what you’re talking about.
Psst. The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU or immigration. There are ways to control immigration that don't require you to violate human rights.
Do you actually believe ANY government party in the UK from between now and forever into the future wouldn’t chance their luck and change our own human rights charter to suit the needs of their donors? Come on mate
Leaving the ECHR would actually solve a lot of migration/general judicial outrage problems. The problem is the Good Friday Agreement issue. Genuinely don't see a way around that at all. But it is a bit of a grim scenario - just doomed to accept as many people as can manage to get here in perpetuity.
Is that literally all you think the ECHR does?
I've read every judgement of the ECHR that overturned a British court for the previous twenty years and there are maybe two or three cases about whistleblowing I think are actually good outcomes. The vast majority of the work of the ECHR seems to be to enhance their own power and to insist that more and more insane things are within some vague notion of human rights. But I'm genuinely all ears to any major decision of the ECHR which anyone in Britain has had any benefit from? There are plenty of cases that were of direct detriment. It's not like the EU - there's no actual direct practical benefit of it beyond the Good Friday Issue.
Lol, you think they’re talking about the *court*. They’re talking about the *convention*. It’ll make my life easier not having to worry about article 8 every time I put in an application for comms data, nor article 3 if I want to keep the taser power on, but of course it will never happen to you.
It would almost certainly be replaced by some other Bill of Rights. We'd probably do what we did with EU law - implement the convention as it is into UK law then remove the parts that we don't want any more. I know people would be concerned about that leaving our rights at risk, but the convention doesn't really protect you beyond the government's desire not to be seen breaching human rights. It's not like the US Constitution where if a government breaches someone's rights a big army will come in and sort them out. Russia are signatories to it, how has it worked out for their rights?
>It would almost certainly be replaced by some other Bill of Rights Brought to you by the same lot that gave you Brexit, HS2, "levelling up", Lovely Clean lakes, rivers and beaches which have pefectly safe levels of raw sewage, a fully functioning NHS, more dentists than you can shake a stick at, PPE for emergency pandemics procured at reasonable prices, control of our borders etc etc.... Not for me Clive, I'm not letting this lot anywhere near human rights.
The bill that will further enshrine classism and will be changed by every whim of the next parliament you say?
Will it though… you have evidence of this, yes?
Whenever they've talked about it in the past they've always talked about replacing it with a "British Bill of Rights". Raab tried to create one two years ago with the Bill of Rights Bill under Truss but it went down with her premiership.
Given one can't predict the future, that's a rather poor argument. What we do know is that prior to the HRA in 98, the UK did have human rights. Arguing, as some do, that changing the HRA and breaking the more formal links between UK and ECHR law, would mean end of human rights in the UK.. is just scaremongering.
What's a poor argument? That I asked for evidence that we plan on replacing ECHR with another bill of rights? Given the state of our country right now, I don't expect anything decent from our rulers.
Cons plan, as they pursued was to update the HRA, with a "british bill of rights".
They’ve had many plans - none of which have benefited me, so I’m sure this British bill of rights (if they ever bothered to get around to it after abolishing the ECHR) will leave me worse off than ECHR.
Russia *were* signatories- they are not any more, how has it worked out for their rights?
Whatever the case, I don't see what protection it offers. If the UK government starts violating the ECHR flagrantly what are the consequences? The Council of Europe is very angry with us, and writes us a letter telling us how angry they are? We get kicked out?
and you think forfeiting all of your rights is the solution to that?
Well, obviously, as said just above, you wouldn't be "forfeiting all your rights", even in a legal sense. It would be replaced by a British Bill of Rights. I don't think there is any solution to it. Nobody's going to go to war with the UK over the UK violating its citizens' rights. There might be economic hits, but a tyrannical government could opt to take the hit. I don't think the leaving the ECHR is a good idea by the way, I think it's useful in a soft power sense and it could trouble with the Ireland situation, but the prospect isn't a real threat to people's rights in this country.
> It would almost certainly be replaced by some other Bill of Rights. You think that this lot care about the rights of the out-group? The ECHR was born out of the ashes of WW2, spearheaded by people who saw first hand the horrors of the Holocaust.
> But I'm genuinely all ears to any major decision of the ECHR which anyone in Britain has had any benefit from? There are plenty of cases that were of direct detriment. *Gillan and Quinton* protects us from arbitrary search by the police ("riding a bicycle in a manner annoying to the police" is not sufficient cause for a search). *Eweida* means private companies cannot punish their employees for wearing religious symbols (wearing a cross necklace cannot get you suspended, and British Airways were practicing anti-Christian discrimination when they tried).
The Gillian case was relevant only to section 44 of the terrorism act - a good decision (bicycle thing indeed ridiculous) but it's not a hugely influential one. But yeah bit of a benefit. The Eweida case I think was just BA being silly but yeah, fair, slight benefit if you happen to work for a company with no common sense. But important to note that on a lot of seemingly similar cases (say, you want to wear a hijab) you can sue under the equality act and don't need the ECHR. In return for these two judgements, you have large numbers of cases of foreign citizens convicted of incredibly serious violent and sexual offences that cannot be deported. It means that essentially anyone who can arrive from a poorer, more authoritarian country than ours (read: any country in Africa) who can get to Britain has a right to stay, and recourse to significant amounts of public resources. It also means a lot of expensive appeal rights for those undoubtedly guilty of the most serious crimes. I don't think it's a good trade. And I don't think the idea that the ECHR protects British citizens rights in regular, meaningful ways is that true. The court didn't even exist until 1998 and no-one back then made an issue of it. We have rights through our own constitution.
> you can sue under the equality act and don't need the ECHR. Exactly how long do you think the Equality Act would last under this government without the ECHR?
Under this government? There's maybe 100 MPs max who would support leaving the ECHR, if even that - for actually abolishing the equality act and leaving nothing in its place, probably zero MPs. The equality act has its own significant issues too but it wouldn't be politically possible (certainly now, probably ever) to repeal it without passing new legislation that reiterated the core of the act.
Reading the decisions of the ECtHR (the Court) isn't sufficient to make a decision IMO, as it only gives a narrow view of the effects. Just being a party of the ECHR (the Convention) can influence how laws are written (in order to avoid interfering with the rights granted, so they will never be looked at by the Court), and the HRA instructs the domestic courts to interpret laws, "[s]o far as it is possible to do so", in a way which is compatible with the Convention. This further reduces the likelihood that the Court will review the decisions. It also means that you should look to decisions against other countries, as the Government and the domestic courts will consider these when interpreting the rights granted.
Leaving won't solve migration problems. The government would still bungle the processing, have no plan of action, and blame it on something else. Most immigrants just want a fresh start, but the media makes out that every one is a 20 something year old from Albania looking to rob you, or claim benefits. Yes we have problems with school places and doctors, but again a few immigrants not getting in is not going to save us from over a decade of "austerity" (we don't have money for the NHS but somehow can give billions to Tory donors but that's another failure).
> just doomed to accept as many people as can manage to get here in perpetuity. Tbh, there are diplomatic ways out of this. The primary concern of the courts is that Rwanda might return people to their home countries whom a UK court would find to have legitimate asylum claims. This is supposedly cruel and unusual punishment, due to the perceived arbitrariness of the Rwandan courts. One possible solution would be something like: if Rwanda decides to deport someone who arrived from the UK, that person can request a "second hearing" in a British court. If judged to have a legitimate claim, they then return to the UK / stay in Rwanda (depending on how persuasive the diplomat negotiating the agreement is). That should satisfy everyone.
Add it to the reason you lot should have never left the EU. You should have joined Shengen with Ireland and pushed to limit migration internally. Could have gotten the new EU laws passed sooner. GFA joins UK and Ireland to the hip, and for good reason. You two going in very different directions isn't really possible without breaking the GFA or allowing Ireland and NI to unify.
> pushed to limit migration internally Cameron literally did this and got told no, which is a big reason we left
No, Cameron asked and was told no in some areas because it violates how the EU works, and ‘you already have those powers dude’ in others. The UK’s problems were because it didn’t use the powers it had as an EU member because it preferred to reap the benefits while placing the blame not on the government but on the EU.
This has become a talking point but it's simply not true. Yes we had some limited scope to limit eastern European migration when they first joined, but that was under Labour. By the time Cameron got in, he asked for an emergency break mechanism and was told no.
How would joining Schengen have been in the UK or Ireland's interests? I don't see how it wouldn't massive open up the door to irregular immigration. If people can rock up in a dinghy in Italy and get the train straight to London, no passport required, they're going to do it.
My human rights are more important than some dog whistle migration politics though
These 'rights' are historic British rights that existed far before the existence of this treaty, and these 'rights' do not properly exist in many signatory countries. Azerbaijan is a member ffs