UKIP and many conservatives want Britain should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This debate used to be the preserve of lawyers, but now the immigration issue has pushed this into popular culture.
The argument for leaving...
The critics of the ECHR argue that its judgments have crept into national law beyond anything ever imagined, and this is preventing the deportation of dangerous criminals because it may compromise their human rights.
And then there's the the fact that these laws were written in the wake of WW2 when immigration was < 10% what it is now. it's not legislation designed to deal with mass migration like we have today realistically!
A Convenient Scapegoat..?
Conservative hardliners have long portrayed the ECHR as aomething which has it in for national sovereignty. They present the Strasbourg Court as being the body responsible for halting deportation flights, blocking immigration policy, and allowing "foreign judges" to have jurisdiction over British law. As one Conservative MP recently put it, "We voted for Brexit in order to take back control — yet Strasbourg still tells us what to do.".
But this line of attack is more show than legal reality. The ECHR cannot override Parliament or the UK courts. It merely provides a vehicle whereby human rights violations can be challenged, with judgments to which the government can choose to adhere — or not. Britain, all bluster notwithstanding, has had a long record of compliance because it wishes to maintain the rule of law, not because it's being forced to.
What's at Stake
Proponents for the ECHR point out that the Convention was written widely by British attorneys in the wake of World War II. It symbolizes values such as fair trials, freedom from torture, and freedom of expression that Britain once championed to the rest of the world. Exit would not only damage the UK's moral reputation but also threaten partnership with European allies.
The Refugee Convention, the Good Friday Agreement, and numerous extradition and policing treaties depend on membership of ECHR. To rip that out would unleash chaos, not sovereignty. And in reality, withdrawal wouldn't solve the government's migration issue. Rwanda flights, for instance, are bogged down in UK courts, not Strasbourg.
Final Thoughts
I'm still for the idea that we need GLOBAL development so that no one NEEDS to migrate, but that's a long term solution obviously. In the meantime In think it's just easier to be kinder and not so mean spirited!
In my experience, Brits, as a whole, are generally fair and conscientious (chavs aside). I think this has likely resulted in many of your policy problems. Others take advantage.
I think the UK can safely assert limits without losing global prestige. Wipe the slate clean and renegotiate. Give the lawyers something to do.
Nice succinct summary, in a rational system that one statement should be enough to cut through the BS!
But then again you know lawyers, they benefit from dragging things out!
Congratulations @revisesociology! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next target is to reach 29000 replies.
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP