UK curbs the power of European Human Rights in the UK

The Bill will ensure courts cannot interpret laws in ways that were never intended by Parliament and will empower people to express their views freely.

...

The Bill will make clear that the UK Supreme Court is the ultimate judicial decision-maker on human rights issues and that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights does not always need to be followed by UK courts.

...

Confirm that interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39, such as the one issued last week which prevented the removal flight to Rwanda, are not binding on UK courts.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/bill-of-rights-to-strengthen-freedom-of-speech-and-curb-bogus-human-rights-claims

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3227

European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or ECtHR), also known as the Strasbourg Court,[1] is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights. The court hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights enumerated in the Convention or its optional protocols to which a member state is a party. The European Convention on Human Rights is also referred to by the initials "ECHR". The court is based in Strasbourg, France.

Did this Government forget the history of the European Convention on Human Rights?

I think the ECHR is not a so-called “foreign court”, but it’s an International Court of which the UK is a founding member.

See also DEAR BORIS
Your Nihilism Betrays Your Grandfather’s Legacy – He’d be Appalled

vinny wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 7:28 am

European Court of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or ECtHR), also known as the Strasbourg Court,[1] is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights. The court hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights enumerated in the Convention or its optional protocols to which a member state is a party. The European Convention on Human Rights is also referred to by the initials "ECHR". The court is based in Strasbourg, France.

I assume the European Court of Human Rights will still be supreme in all the EEA countries?

This is not a surprise. Didn't the UK start to bring in a British human rights Bill while in the EU? That then ended when the UK voted to leave the EU as it was no longer needed?

Still on the books: Human Rights Act 1998
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents
It was a decision of the then Labour government to enact this, not a requirement of the EU and ECHR is not an EU institution, often confused with the ECJ.

JB007 wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 7:44 am

I assume the European Court of Human Rights will still be supreme in all the EEA countries?

Yes.

JB007 wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 23, 2022 7:44 am

This is not a surprise. Didn't the UK start to bring in a British human rights Bill while in the EU? That then ended when the UK voted to leave the EU as it was no longer needed?

The EU and ECHR are separate issues.

The UK now proposes to follow Russian’s footsteps.

Abandoned for now.

vinny wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 09, 2022 6:22 am

Abandoned for now.

Where does the article say that?

From your article

It is abundantly clear from her previous statements that Braverman strongly opposes entry by asylum seekers without prior permission and that she is fully committed to Patel’s Rwanda policy.

And the Bill to enable that to happen.; A Bill to reform the law relating to human rights; to give the power back to UK courts, is still going through and was updated yesterday. It's only been on hold because of the MPs long summer holidays.

The Times reports that Braverman wants to pursue a deal with the French, along with greater use of immigration detention and some sort of restriction of asylum support.

Deals with the French (money given)are not kept to by the French, so I would be surprised if that part happened.

And lets not forget the Primie Minister has already said that she would support and extend the Rwanda policy. Meaning she would look for other countries like Rwanda, who will take asylum seekers in the UK: who would them allow them to live in that country if they are granted refugee status.

JB007 wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 10, 2022 2:33 pm

vinny wrote: ↑

Fri Sep 09, 2022 6:22 am

Abandoned for now.

Where does the article say that?

I was referring to

Braverman’s leadership bid failed, though, and Liz Truss calls the shots as Prime Minister. Very quickly, key journalists have been briefed that withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights is not going to be pursued. Even Dominic Raab’s bizarre Bill of Rights Bill is being abandoned.

vinny wrote: ↑

Sat Sep 10, 2022 3:35 pm

I was referring to

Braverman’s leadership bid failed, though, and Liz Truss calls the shots as Prime Minister. Very quickly, key journalists have been briefed that withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights is not going to be pursued. Even Dominic Raab’s bizarre Bill of Rights Bill is being abandoned.

The Twitter feed talks about the Bill of Rights running out of time, which has happened because of the long summer break. They can just bring in another British Bill of Rights and if they want to, with even stricter changes.

Both leadership contenders stated they were going to ago ahead with the Rwanda policy for asylum seekers/economic migrants who entered the UK illegally from the safe countries in the EU. With the new PM stating she would extend it; use other countries too to send these to.
https://news.sky.com/story/liz-truss-sa ... s-12664872

There also seems to be changes to those who enter the UK illegally or overstay their visa, with up to 4 years in jail....

Nothing is pointing towards the UK abandoning this policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda (and other countires).

Liz Truss has said she would "support and extend" the government's controversial Rwanda deportation policy "to more countries".

Both Tory leadership hopefuls Ms Truss and Rishi Sunak have previously committed to continuing the policy if they become the next prime minister.

"I would support and extend the Rwanda policy to more countries but also I would make sure in British law that we can't be overruled by the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) so we are able to protect our borders."

https://news.sky.com/story/liz-truss-sa ... s-12664872

Liz Truss got the votes and is now PM

I admire your optimism vinny, but the new Home Secretary Suella Braverman, will be tougher on immigration. Stircter than even Priti Patel (the outgoing Home Secretray) was and many thought Patel was tough: and as said by contenders in the leadership race (of which she was one) it's not fair on the British it they don't do this.

Just look at what Braverman has stated,even before she became Home Secretary.

JB007 wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 11, 2022 11:06 am

Just look at what Braverman has stated,even before she became Home Secretary.

She wants the end of the European Court of Human Rights in the UK and said she he would work to withdraw Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/sue ... -the-point

As Home Secretary, she has said that her first priority is to stop the boats from France as she would make make in not viable for those who arrived in the UK on the boats (and lorries). In other words, they would not suceed as they will not get what they thought they would get. And we already know the PM (who chose Braverman as Home Secretary) supports these people being sent to Rwanda and intrends to extend this to be able to send these illegal entrants to other countries too.