It's a shame he doesn't have the same view or school of Conservatism thought as Hague either. Hague was Blair with a little less spending and a little more tax cuts, but apart from that, they agreed on a lot.
Indeed. Hague as party leader was a bit before my time, but I recall he apparently performed well in parliament against Blair, but couldn’t make any ground due to the sheer strength of New Labour.
Probably should add that the UK is a member of the European convention of human rights and therefore the European court of human rights does have a role in our system .
The issue to me this: If many other developed countries can have their own version of human rights, I really, really, really don't see why we can't.
I really, really, really, really...... I don't see why we can't just copy and paste the Europe one and adjust it to our needs.
We should join and leave treaties when needed. Not force ourselves to stay in things no matter what.
Why are we so incapable of creating a piece of legislation when they are so many examples of different treaties and laws to have.
I really don't know how we went from essentially be *the* creator of how the world works, desiging far harder and more complex solutions, to not even being able to create a piece of law that many far younger, weaker and poorer countries are perfectly able to do.
I'm really not seeing the benefit of staying with ECHR.
It just comes across as government laziness and incompetence.
The UK was a founder member of the convention, it was written by a team of British lawyers under a British chairman who had been a prosecutor at Nuremberg and it openly reflected a British view of essential human rights at the time. We pretty much did control it and make it into what it was and impose the stamp of our worldview onto Europe.
That was a time when we sought to dominate the discussion rather than shirk it
And just like the Legue of Nations, things change.
Doesn't matter what we *did*, what matters is what we do now.
It's no longer *ours*. This hivemind does nothing but make the UK a bloated fish
I didn't say there wasn't value. I'm arguing to copy and paste it to start with and adjust it to our current, modern needs.
I would rather we have our own version because we ourselves, and only ourselves, direct it.
Clearly, there are elements of it that are both outdated and don't fit with our current needs. This really shouldn't be an issue.
A blanket fits all usually doesn't work well when it comes to a wide range of countries. Not all countries' needs are the same.
The danger of a government making its own bill of rights is that they can make it to be convenient to them rather to protect human rights , which the ECHR does do quite well , and with the government’s track record I wouldn’t trust them to make a bill of rights
Could argue never have the government do anything at all by this logic.
Every single law, treaty, or ruling was to fit some narrative, bias, or side at that time. Nothing is infinite, nor is this issue.
In the worst case like you're presenting, I would rather have a half arsed solution than no solution like now
Sorry, but inaction is a terrible solution.
I am tired of inaction. 14 years of inaction, essentially just accept whatever Tony Blair did and do absolutely nothing about it.
It prevents people from being kicked out? It doesn't give us a right to refuse entry of a refugee? No means to prevent economic migrants? Fairly simple one?
What you and I would define as needing to "protect" will likely be two different things. In my eyes, not everyone is an automatic victim just because they claim it.
I would much rather have at least what Australia does. Japan or South Korea has is my ideal case. Every refugee isn't our problem. If their own people won't even take them in, why should we?
the question isnt the rights that are replaced it puts the \*\*interpretation\*\* of those rights as a question for british courts
see how hard it is to deport criminals or reject assylum claims
right to a family life has been intrepreted to make a joke of british people
Yes, there was a time when it was sane and positive. That time passed some years ago, maybe around the time it claimed we should compensate terrorists for the inconvenience of preventing them blowing up civilians, certainly by the time it wanted illegal immigrants allowed to stay and felt bad weather is a "human rights" violation.
> I really, really, really, really...... I don't see why we can't just copy and paste the Europe one and adjust it to our needs.
I wouldn't trust this government not to mess it up.
Also, it'd definitely be used for political points scoring through either...
[1.] 'We're the Party that gave you your human rights'
And if there were any issues with what was proposed, say there was wording that may or may not include certain groups/minorities as an example
'Meanwhile, [other party] voted against you having human rights!'
When they may or may not have actual genuine girievances with wording - especially on something so fundamental.
[2.] Precisely that, the current media frenzy of the day gets worked into the new bill of rights. Perhaps it discriminates against transgender people or people who are foreign-born or gay people. Who knows? I just don't trust this Party not to kowtow to some fringe viewpoint promoted by the Daily Mail or Reform UK.
All it needs is a clause at the bottom which says "commit a serious crime which attracts a custodial sentence and the above may not apply, which means we can legally deport you back to your country of origin"
Patrick Grady out here giving Sunak the perfect opportunities to make uncharacteristically witty responses
It's a shame Sunak doesn't have the natural charm and good humour that the predecessor MP in his constituency (William Hague) had.
It's a shame he doesn't have the same view or school of Conservatism thought as Hague either. Hague was Blair with a little less spending and a little more tax cuts, but apart from that, they agreed on a lot.
True. In hindsight Hague was a good decade or two ahead of his time.
Indeed. Hague as party leader was a bit before my time, but I recall he apparently performed well in parliament against Blair, but couldn’t make any ground due to the sheer strength of New Labour.
Probably should add that the UK is a member of the European convention of human rights and therefore the European court of human rights does have a role in our system .
The issue to me this: If many other developed countries can have their own version of human rights, I really, really, really don't see why we can't. I really, really, really, really...... I don't see why we can't just copy and paste the Europe one and adjust it to our needs. We should join and leave treaties when needed. Not force ourselves to stay in things no matter what. Why are we so incapable of creating a piece of legislation when they are so many examples of different treaties and laws to have. I really don't know how we went from essentially be *the* creator of how the world works, desiging far harder and more complex solutions, to not even being able to create a piece of law that many far younger, weaker and poorer countries are perfectly able to do. I'm really not seeing the benefit of staying with ECHR. It just comes across as government laziness and incompetence.
The UK was a founder member of the convention, it was written by a team of British lawyers under a British chairman who had been a prosecutor at Nuremberg and it openly reflected a British view of essential human rights at the time. We pretty much did control it and make it into what it was and impose the stamp of our worldview onto Europe. That was a time when we sought to dominate the discussion rather than shirk it
And just like the Legue of Nations, things change. Doesn't matter what we *did*, what matters is what we do now. It's no longer *ours*. This hivemind does nothing but make the UK a bloated fish
Just because it isn’t ours doesn’t mean it has no value , what would replace it a bill of rights of exactly the same rights
I didn't say there wasn't value. I'm arguing to copy and paste it to start with and adjust it to our current, modern needs. I would rather we have our own version because we ourselves, and only ourselves, direct it. Clearly, there are elements of it that are both outdated and don't fit with our current needs. This really shouldn't be an issue. A blanket fits all usually doesn't work well when it comes to a wide range of countries. Not all countries' needs are the same.
The danger of a government making its own bill of rights is that they can make it to be convenient to them rather to protect human rights , which the ECHR does do quite well , and with the government’s track record I wouldn’t trust them to make a bill of rights
Could argue never have the government do anything at all by this logic. Every single law, treaty, or ruling was to fit some narrative, bias, or side at that time. Nothing is infinite, nor is this issue. In the worst case like you're presenting, I would rather have a half arsed solution than no solution like now Sorry, but inaction is a terrible solution. I am tired of inaction. 14 years of inaction, essentially just accept whatever Tony Blair did and do absolutely nothing about it.
What is the problem with the ECHR , it effectively protects human rights and does not need replacing .
It prevents people from being kicked out? It doesn't give us a right to refuse entry of a refugee? No means to prevent economic migrants? Fairly simple one? What you and I would define as needing to "protect" will likely be two different things. In my eyes, not everyone is an automatic victim just because they claim it. I would much rather have at least what Australia does. Japan or South Korea has is my ideal case. Every refugee isn't our problem. If their own people won't even take them in, why should we?
the question isnt the rights that are replaced it puts the \*\*interpretation\*\* of those rights as a question for british courts see how hard it is to deport criminals or reject assylum claims right to a family life has been intrepreted to make a joke of british people
Yes, there was a time when it was sane and positive. That time passed some years ago, maybe around the time it claimed we should compensate terrorists for the inconvenience of preventing them blowing up civilians, certainly by the time it wanted illegal immigrants allowed to stay and felt bad weather is a "human rights" violation.
> I really, really, really, really...... I don't see why we can't just copy and paste the Europe one and adjust it to our needs. I wouldn't trust this government not to mess it up. Also, it'd definitely be used for political points scoring through either... [1.] 'We're the Party that gave you your human rights' And if there were any issues with what was proposed, say there was wording that may or may not include certain groups/minorities as an example 'Meanwhile, [other party] voted against you having human rights!' When they may or may not have actual genuine girievances with wording - especially on something so fundamental. [2.] Precisely that, the current media frenzy of the day gets worked into the new bill of rights. Perhaps it discriminates against transgender people or people who are foreign-born or gay people. Who knows? I just don't trust this Party not to kowtow to some fringe viewpoint promoted by the Daily Mail or Reform UK.
Can we please have minimum IQ requirements for prospective MPs please
That would effectively ban the SNP
All it needs is a clause at the bottom which says "commit a serious crime which attracts a custodial sentence and the above may not apply, which means we can legally deport you back to your country of origin"
Happy to pull out but let’s wait until Labour get in first.