Boris Johnson calls for referendum on leaving ECHR

[Purple Train]

And in other news.....

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...hits-out-at-greedy-keir-starmer-over-freebies



The projection is 'impressive'!

Sorry, can't offer a considered analysis, I need to rush down to my kitchen. I think the pot and the kettle have started arguing.

And, on a slightly more controversial note, why should anyone be listening to a disgraced former Prime Minister anyway? Would it not be correct to say that the only person to have been recommended a longer Commons suspension is Keith Vaz?

Johnson ranting about ethics is like Farage ranting about career politicians.

 

[Falcon1200]

I doubt Boris Johnson has sufficient influence to have this adopted as Tory party policy, even if they were in power, and I don't see it being a primary concern in any case.

But, as a matter of interest, what rights would we lose due to withdrawal from the ECHR, ie what is not already covered by UK law?

 

[Gloster]

I doubt Boris Johnson has sufficient influence to have this adopted as Tory party policy, even if they were in power, and I don't see it being a primary concern in any case.

But, as a matter of interest, what rights would we lose due to withdrawal from the ECHR, ie what is not already covered by UK law?

No Parliament is bound by previous Parliaments. At the moment any law in Britain and its application must be in accordance with the basic human rights laid down in the ECHR: if it isn’t then judges can dismiss it and it cannot be used. If we left the ECHR Westminster would be the ultimate decider: it could pass any law it wished, however appalling, and there would be no legal way of stopping it being enforced.

At the moment, if Parliament passed a law saying that the Home Secretary had the right to declare any person an enemy of the people without giving a reason and imprison them without trial as long as the Home Secretary deemed necessary, it would be struck down as incompatible with the ECHR and could not be applied. If we left the ECHR, there would be nothing higher than Parliament that could stop the law being brought into force: the judges couldn’t as they couldn’t overrule laws passed by Parliament as the latter would be the ultimate arbiter. In a country that has no written constitution, the ECHR is the ultimate guarantor of our rights: leave it and we are at the whims of politicians who can alter what has gone before.

 

[Ediswan]

At the moment, if Parliament passed a law saying that the Home Secretary had the right to declare any person an enemy of the people without giving a reason and imprison them without trial as long as the Home Secretary deemed necessary, it would be struck down as incompatible with the ECHR and could not be applied. If we left the ECHR, there would be nothing higher than Parliament that could stop the law being brought into force: the judges couldn’t as they couldn’t overrule laws passed by Parliament as the latter would be the ultimate arbiter. In a country that has no written constitution, the ECHR is the ultimate guarantor of our rights: leave it and we are at the whims of politicians who can alter what has gone before.

There is a precedent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius

Operation Demetrius was a British Army operation in Northern Ireland on 9–10 August 1971, during the Troubles. It involved the mass arrest and internment (imprisonment without trial) of people suspected of being involved with the Irish Republican Army (IRA), which was waging an armed campaign for a united Ireland against the British state. It was proposed by the Unionist government of Northern Ireland and approved by the British Government.

 

[gazthomas]

Why doesn't he just shut the hell up, apply for American citizenship (which he could probably get because he was born there), and shove off to Mar-a-Lago to live with his mate Donald?

That stupid, stupid man has already done untold damage to this country. He's a has-been, an anachronism, and even the Brexiters don't like him any more since he locked us all down while he and his Tory mates partied.

Spot on

 

[SuspectUsual]

There is a precedent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius

Yes, but I think the point being made was that Parliament could pass whatever laws it chose and the judiciary would have no means of stopping it.

Perhaps a better example might be to say the government could pass a law declaring another country with a recent history of human rights abuse was in fact perfectly safe

 

[geoffk]

Very true.
Of course it illustrates the oft-made point about badly-designed referenda which assume that if a radical and risky choice "wins" the referendum it equals a popular mandate for radical and risky change, even if the turnout is low.

and of course a referendum is only "advisory" anyway, the final decision resting with Parliament (in theory because that's not how it worked in 2016).

 

[Gloster]

There is a precedent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Demetrius

Indeed, because they had in 1957 invoked a derogation under Article 15.1. However, my reading is that there has to be a clear danger to the nation and could be challenged in the Court: if it was challenged and the challenge was upheld, the British government would have to give way. If we have left the ECHR and it is passed by Parliament, there is nowhere to take a challenge.