Article 50 ruling due now
Discussion
Greg66 said:
CrutyRammers said:
Or too complex for some Remainers.
Membership of the ECHR is a requirement of membership of the EU.
Leaving the EU therefore makes it possible to leave the ECHR, when it was not before.
Membership of the ECHR is a requirement of membership of the EU.
Leaving the EU therefore makes it possible to leave the ECHR, when it was not before.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, which we helped set up in 1949.
Our membership of the EU is nothing to do with our membership of the ECHR or our adherence to decisions of the ECHR.
So why post Brexit would we leave it?
As to reasons why, there have for many years been rumblings about leaving it, the Qatada case being one of the more high-profile ones.
CrutyRammers said:
Greg66 said:
CrutyRammers said:
Or too complex for some Remainers.
Membership of the ECHR is a requirement of membership of the EU.
Leaving the EU therefore makes it possible to leave the ECHR, when it was not before.
Membership of the ECHR is a requirement of membership of the EU.
Leaving the EU therefore makes it possible to leave the ECHR, when it was not before.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, which we helped set up in 1949.
Our membership of the EU is nothing to do with our membership of the ECHR or our adherence to decisions of the ECHR.
So why post Brexit would we leave it?
As to reasons why, there have for many years been rumblings about leaving it, the Qatada case being one of the more high-profile ones.
The (by now, possibly former) head of the judges that allowed Qatada to stay admitted in an appearance at Westminster that it's common for ECHR judges to have no judicial experience. If not, then very little. Bratza commented that it's common for academic lawyers with no experience of judicial work, anywhere, to be parachuted in after being nominated by EU countries. The results that follow are unsurprising.
Various criminals and terrorists taking the UK to court shouldn't be in the UK anyway, but the ECHR manages to ignore this fundamental injustice and let them stay for spurious oooman royt reasons. A review I read looked at these cases and found that a third of these criminals and terrorists win their case. Zero to one percent would need looking into.
Conservative MP in 2012 Dominic Raab said:
The ECHR president may not be fussed that we have a bunch of academics making the law up as they go along, but elected law-makers and the public in Britain certainly are.
Sufficient numbers anyway going by the convention backdrop:
CrutyRammers said:
Greg66 said:
CrutyRammers said:
Or too complex for some Remainers.
Membership of the ECHR is a requirement of membership of the EU.
Leaving the EU therefore makes it possible to leave the ECHR, when it was not before.
Membership of the ECHR is a requirement of membership of the EU.
Leaving the EU therefore makes it possible to leave the ECHR, when it was not before.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, which we helped set up in 1949.
Our membership of the EU is nothing to do with our membership of the ECHR or our adherence to decisions of the ECHR.
So why post Brexit would we leave it?
As to reasons why, there have for many years been rumblings about leaving it, the Qatada case being one of the more high-profile ones.
If you said leaving the EU would remove us from the ECJ rulings on human rights I would agree.
As for the Qatada case, you do realise he was subsequently released with out trial?
BBC web profile:
Qatada "had developed militant views that put him firmly in the fold of hardline thinkers who provided the intellectual arguments for religiously-justified violence".
"He had developed militant views that put him firmly in the fold of hardline thinkers who provided the intellectual arguments for religiously-justified violence. Although his political relationship with al-Qaeda was never straight forward, his worldview became virtually indistinguishable."
"It was one religious opinion during 1995 which led to devastating consequences. Abu Qatada concluded that it was Islamically lawful to kill the wives and children of 'apostates', those who have rejected Islam, to stop oppression in Algeria."
"The practical effect was that armed Islamists in the country used his ruling to justify their attacks against civilians on the basis that anyone who was not with them was against them."
If a repetition of the pantomime that preceded his extradition is going to be avoided, we need to avoid it sooner rather than later. Article 50 has its timescale however.
Qatada "had developed militant views that put him firmly in the fold of hardline thinkers who provided the intellectual arguments for religiously-justified violence".
"He had developed militant views that put him firmly in the fold of hardline thinkers who provided the intellectual arguments for religiously-justified violence. Although his political relationship with al-Qaeda was never straight forward, his worldview became virtually indistinguishable."
"It was one religious opinion during 1995 which led to devastating consequences. Abu Qatada concluded that it was Islamically lawful to kill the wives and children of 'apostates', those who have rejected Islam, to stop oppression in Algeria."
"The practical effect was that armed Islamists in the country used his ruling to justify their attacks against civilians on the basis that anyone who was not with them was against them."
If a repetition of the pantomime that preceded his extradition is going to be avoided, we need to avoid it sooner rather than later. Article 50 has its timescale however.
The ECHR has never affected the sovereignty of Parliament. It is a convention, of which we are a signatory. The Strasbourg court rules on the interpretation of the Treaty. Parliament is free to disregard any decision of Strasbourg. As it has done with prisoner voting rights.
https://fullfact.org/law/votes-prisoners-politics-...
The HRA says that the courts should interpret domestic legislation to give effect to Convention rights where possible, but where not possible UK law has primacy.
Confounding the ECHR with the EU was a classic leaver tactic.
https://fullfact.org/law/votes-prisoners-politics-...
The HRA says that the courts should interpret domestic legislation to give effect to Convention rights where possible, but where not possible UK law has primacy.
Confounding the ECHR with the EU was a classic leaver tactic.
According to The Independent (it is, are you, etc) Theresa May is planning on making the case to leave the European Convention on Human Rights a central aspect of her 2020 election campaign. Clearly separate from the EU, and leaving the EU; who says otherwise? The ECourtofHR is still a waste of space with inexperienced (and zero experience) judges making it up on the hoof, and worthy of severe criticism in its own right.
turbobloke said:
According to The Independent (it is, are you, etc) Theresa May is planning on making the case to leave the European Convention on Human Rights a central aspect of her 2020 election campaign. Clearly separate from the EU, and leaving the EU; who says otherwise? The ECourtofHR is still a waste of space with inexperienced (and zero experience) judges making it up on the hoof, and worthy of severe criticism in its own right.
The Independent should make better use of their crystal ball.I'm impressed that you are so au fait with the CVs of the 47 judges of the ECtHR. Although, having just perused a sample, the judges are certainly not what I would deem to be inexperienced. I checked UK, France, Germany.
It's a shame when there is a general view that a body which represents so many nations and which acts to protect human rights is thought of as a waste of space.
Amateurish said:
turbobloke said:
According to The Independent (it is, are you, etc) Theresa May is planning on making the case to leave the European Convention on Human Rights a central aspect of her 2020 election campaign. Clearly separate from the EU, and leaving the EU; who says otherwise? The ECourtofHR is still a waste of space with inexperienced (and zero experience) judges making it up on the hoof, and worthy of severe criticism in its own right.
The Independent should make better use of their crystal ball.
Amateurish said:
I'm impressed that you are so au fait with the CVs of the 47 judges of the ECtHR.
There's no justification for being impressed, nor for the sarcasm, their head honcho discussed details under questioning by a UK parliamentary commtittee - that's not a private discussion, and the details are/were public knowledge beyond that.Amateurish said:
Although, having just perused a sample, the judges are certainly not what I would deem to be inexperienced. I checked UK, France, Germany.
Good to see you discovered it's not difficult to check. Sampling matters, of course; but beyond that, it has happened before and remains possible for an academic lawyer with no experience to be appointed, that's not a recipe for success.Amateurish said:
It's a shame when there is a general view that a body which represents so many nations and which acts to protect human rights is thought of as a waste of space.
It's an even bigger shame that the body is indeed a waste of space. UK courts are perfectly capable of ruling on human rights issues, with qualified and experienced UK judges. Judges from other countries, with no experience, might like to get some - in tneir own countries.So the objection is to academics becoming judges? This is what you mean by "zero experience" I think. I don't agree that an academic cannot be a judge - a lot of the bar comes from academia. You can become a judge in the UK straight from academia. I'm not sure that dealing with petty criminals in the criminal courts would necessarily give better experience of the skills required for interpreting an international convention.
Below is the text I think you were referring to.
"Sir Nicolas Bratza: Coming from a jurisdiction where the judges are drawn from the Bar, I favour the members of the Court who perhaps are practitioners and have had judicial experience at home. In fact, about half the judges of our Court do have sometimes very extensive judicial experience at home. The other half do not, but they are from mixed backgrounds—some prosecutors, some officials, and a significant number of very experienced academic lawyers. That is the tradition on the continent. There is nothing strange in having academic lawyers sitting either on national courts or indeed on international tribunals such as ours. I must say, some of the best judges that we have do come from an academic background."
Below is the text I think you were referring to.
"Sir Nicolas Bratza: Coming from a jurisdiction where the judges are drawn from the Bar, I favour the members of the Court who perhaps are practitioners and have had judicial experience at home. In fact, about half the judges of our Court do have sometimes very extensive judicial experience at home. The other half do not, but they are from mixed backgrounds—some prosecutors, some officials, and a significant number of very experienced academic lawyers. That is the tradition on the continent. There is nothing strange in having academic lawyers sitting either on national courts or indeed on international tribunals such as ours. I must say, some of the best judges that we have do come from an academic background."
Amateurish said:
So the objection is to academics becoming judges? This is what you mean by "zero experience" I think. I don't agree that an academic cannot be a judge - a lot of the bar comes from academia. You can become a judge in the UK straight from academia. I'm not sure that dealing with petty criminals in the criminal courts would necessarily give better experience of the skills required for interpreting an international convention.
Bookwormery plus experience wins out against bookwormery alone in my view, but we appear to disagree on that.Bratza said:
That is the tradition on the continent.
It can stay there post-2020, according to The Independent - and as it's in The Independent and on the internet, it must be true 
What a shame, Gina Miller isn't happy. When she launched her court case she said it was all about "the due process of the law" and nothing to do with being pro or anti Brexit claiming she had no political agenda whatsoever. Mmm yeah it really looks that way....
"Gina Miller demands Lords show 'backbone' in changing Theresa May's Brexit Bill on eve of critical debate
Exclusive: The Supreme Court campaigner claimed MPs have shown ‘cowardice’ in failing to amend it in the Commons"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...
"Gina Miller demands Lords show 'backbone' in changing Theresa May's Brexit Bill on eve of critical debate
Exclusive: The Supreme Court campaigner claimed MPs have shown ‘cowardice’ in failing to amend it in the Commons"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...
BlackLabel said:
What a shame, Gina Miller isn't happy. When she launched her court case she said it was all about "the due process of the law" and nothing to do with being pro or anti Brexit claiming she had no political agenda whatsoever. Mmm yeah it really looks that way....
"Gina Miller demands Lords show 'backbone' in changing Theresa May's Brexit Bill on eve of critical debate
Exclusive: The Supreme Court campaigner claimed MPs have shown ‘cowardice’ in failing to amend it in the Commons"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...
and she wonders why she get hate mail ?"Gina Miller demands Lords show 'backbone' in changing Theresa May's Brexit Bill on eve of critical debate
Exclusive: The Supreme Court campaigner claimed MPs have shown ‘cowardice’ in failing to amend it in the Commons"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...
Jazzy Jag said:
and she wonders why she get hate mail ?
She's seeing her 15mins of fame fade away. Maybe she'd like a seat in the Lords so she can ensure they are doing their job properly on our behalf. After all, she knows best (thinking of Matilda characters).
Might be better for everyone if she said what she thinks needs to be changed or/and stfu. And if it's a vote on the final deal she wants, maybe she should think a bit harder about that...
johnxjsc1985 said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Doesn't matter whether people agree with her, threats and hate mail is entirely unacceptable.
I feel certain she knew how much flak she would get when she started this I don't think she is a shrinking wall flower. Time for her to go away now.She was on the Marr show earlier talking about 'her' new campaign to support the Lords in the latest scheme to thwart/delay A50.
The reality being of course being that it's not 'her' scheme at all but the elite that sit behind her, the same elite who have behind her from the get go.
If Miller doesn't like the alleged hate mail and every thing else that's alleged to come her way, she could step down as the mouthpiece of the elite, and let the real people expose themselves and take the flak.
Miller won't though as she loves the adulation she gets from some quarters.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff