Because he's a globalist. And like most western globalists,they have a patriarchal attitude towards countries they deem,below western European standards. Just like the people who put their pronouns in an emails,they don't know how disingenuous,and patronising they are!
@@MK-sx3bm Its nothing to do with isolationism,and everything to do with sovereignty and being able for parliament and our judiciary to be held to account by the people.
Surprised to hear a Tory MP justify our staying in the ECHR on the grounds that our leaving would send a negative message to Belarus! Is this a usual concern amongst Tory MPs or are most of them more concerned with the wellbeing of their constituents and even our unique four-nation country at large?
He's a conservative in name only. Unless we're talking about conserving multinational organisations,NGOs and international corporations. In reality,he's a Lib Dem. There are 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels. There are only 12,000 in Washington. Grieve and his ilk had dreams of jobs,on the very lucrative EU gravy train.Possibly jobs for their offspring one day. Poor Dominic!
I admire your superb ability to summarise a host of arguments by a former attorney general into a simple statement that simultaneously manages to pay deference to the most unfortunate of all countries in Europe :) And to respond to your point - yes, even in Belarus there are terrains worth fighting over and decent individuals who, despite having to toe the line right now, actually pay attention to the future prospects of international European courts where future membership of states even as currently backward as Belarus might become a possibility by drawing inspiration from other more fortunate states as Euro-sceptic as Britain in the decades to come.
For Sumption it seems to be about a sensible,and accountable judiciary. For Grieve its completely ideological. I did enjoy,after Grieve Boasted about his part in the Brighton convention,Sumption bursting his bubble. 😁
ECHR is completely separate from the EU and was instigated by Winston Churchill. In his speech to the Congress, Churchill stated: “In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.” It was from this gathering that the ECHR began to take shape.
@davidbrunsdon3245 interesting that remainers want to stay in the ECHR though... EU isn't keen on democracy. ECHR is not easily controlled by the democratic system. I see a strong parallel.
Egotistical DG has made a name for himself as a remainer of all things litigious and if he were to back off (from ruining our country) then his career would be over. DG first, electorate last.
By that logic u might wanna start with abolishing the monarchy. The UK's democracy is underpinned by compromise and the exercise of soft power, not by petulant prepubescent tantrums about perceived affront to national sovereignty. It's an international agreement between equal partners, not some catastrophic surrender.
So they don’t like the idea of our national parliament shouldering the responsibility of upholding our rights because that would be “nationalistic” or something? Instead they would prefer to hand these responsibilities over to lawyers in other countries.
A RESOUNDING 'YES' ........ STAYING-IN IS DOING MORE HARM TO THE UK THAN GOOD. WE'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO CONTROL OUR BORDERS IF WE REMAIN IN THE ECHR. 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
Leave the ECHR and one drunk stag night where you do nothing wrong but one of your mates does but you get arrested for it or an incident when on holiday in Europe and you get caught in the mayhem and wrongfully arrested. Then lets see what you think of ECHR when you have lost all your protections and are sat in a foreign cell wondering when you will get home. It's a two way street and you seem quite happy to throw away yours and other British citizens protections for what you think will be a solution. If we left the ECHR and we still could not control our borders then what? The reality is people who are trying to get here are often lied to by the traffickers and those lies will continue regardless of if we are in the ECHR or not.
I find it hilarious that what he is saying that he doesn’t want to be under a international court that their government can just ignore! When they don’t like the ruling of the court!
Grieve can only speculate as to why, politicians at the time of signing, signed up to the ECHR. We were already a progressive European Nation; and successive Parliaments had been protecting our 'rights', through the improvement of conditions, well before the ECHR came along. It was, thus, of no benefit to the British to subscribe to an "international" form of scrutiny. This leaves us with the question originally asked as to why our politicians signed us up: and any answer has to take into account the GLOBALIST aspirations of many of those who consider themselves our "betters". This mindset - epitomised by Blair and Johnson - has been openly on display since December 2019: complete with all of the contempt and disdain for the indigenous inhabitants of this archipelago, which these 'superior forms of life' hold as a 'community'.
The gulf here is between someone who believes in the Common Law and someone who believes in the Enlightenment. That is, the Counter-Revolution versus the Revolution.
Lord Sumption as erudite and persuasive as ever. As “intrusive” as the ECHR may appear to be, what always worries me is the lack of an alternative suggested by the right wing press of the country when discussing it. Sumption argues against the ECHR on the grounds that the UK can deal with human rights issues perfectly well on our own. Much of the right wing press in the country seem to simply like the idea of there being less human rights legislation as if it is merely inconvenient to those who “have”.
No list of human rights can be sufficiently comprehensive: and the implication of such a list is that if something is not on the list, then it is not a right. Law should be prohibitive, not permissive: the function of law is to prevent us from harming one another.
British Law is like that - if it ain't forbidden you can do it. Au contraire Continental (Napoleonic) law needs a list of rights like you say. If it ain't specifically permitted you CAN'T do it: "Napoleonic Code:- Anything not legally authorised or permissible is illegal to do. British Common Law:- Anything not specifically outlawed is lawfully doable." Shows how essentially un-British Wokeism/socialism is. Let's bin it! By LAW! 🇬🇧
Basically it’s whether you want to be in the eu or not ,the people did not want to remain in it ,the political class on the whole did. That is why we still are subservient and not partners in our dealings with the EU ,an the court ,whether separate body or not is a European authority which has power over this sovereign state.💁♂️
@@evolassunglasses4673 no, as always, we live under the super rich. This has never changed in human history. Sure sometimes the super rich have little hats, but often they don’t. The only labels that really matter in terms of power are rich and poor
the convention has NOT stopped Azerbaijan's genocidal attack on the Armenians. thisguy has hos head in the clouds. He should have no power or authority
For all the rhetoric of leaving EHCR, there never is talk of what to replace it with....!? Never a mention of a UK human rights act. All the same thing of lets scrap EU law then the "oh! that means woman's equal pay"
There is an old saying that Names and natures do often agree. Dominic's surname tells us everything relevant that we need to know about him. American communities are swamped with illegal invaders and our trajectory looks similar. The ethos of the Biden administration is not Utilitarian i.e. does not aim at the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Instead they are endorsing behaviour that has led to greater lawlessness and widespread discontent : the greatest misery of the greatest number. The mentality and corrupt ethics of the ECHR are similar to that of the Biden administration. That is why the UK is in a similar predicament. Whose side are you on Dominic ?
Why does Grieve think that it's the UK's job to persuade any other country in any particular direction!
Because he's a globalist.
And like most western globalists,they have a patriarchal attitude towards countries they deem,below western European standards.
Just like the people who put their pronouns in an emails,they don't know how disingenuous,and patronising they are!
It's a pathetic, rather strange hangover of imperialism that "liberals" labour under.
Cuz he doesn't have an island mentality and is no isolationist.
Because he's a left-wing globalist fascist and establishment tool.
@@MK-sx3bm Its nothing to do with isolationism,and everything to do with sovereignty and being able for parliament and our judiciary to be held to account by the people.
Urrghh Grieve is still sniffing about, hasnt he had enough of meddling with people's opinions and voting choices.
Surprised to hear a Tory MP justify our staying in the ECHR on the grounds that our leaving would send a negative message to Belarus!
Is this a usual concern amongst Tory MPs or are most of them more concerned with the wellbeing of their constituents and even our unique four-nation country at large?
The Torys work for International finance and haven't conserved anything of Britain since 1945.
He's a conservative in name only.
Unless we're talking about conserving multinational organisations,NGOs and international corporations.
In reality,he's a Lib Dem.
There are 30,000 lobbyists in Brussels.
There are only 12,000 in Washington.
Grieve and his ilk had dreams of jobs,on the very lucrative EU gravy train.Possibly jobs for their offspring one day.
Poor Dominic!
I admire your superb ability to summarise a host of arguments by a former attorney general into a simple statement that simultaneously manages to pay deference to the most unfortunate of all countries in Europe :) And to respond to your point - yes, even in Belarus there are terrains worth fighting over and decent individuals who, despite having to toe the line right now, actually pay attention to the future prospects of international European courts where future membership of states even as currently backward as Belarus might become a possibility by drawing inspiration from other more fortunate states as Euro-sceptic as Britain in the decades to come.
Leaving simply ENHANCES the reputation of the UK
Listening to Grieve he always has a post it note on his forehead saying “I speak for the EU”
For Sumption it seems to be about a sensible,and accountable judiciary.
For Grieve its completely ideological.
I did enjoy,after Grieve Boasted about his part in the Brighton convention,Sumption bursting his bubble.
😁
Grieve is basically saying that dumping the ECHR would mean a smacked bottom from mummy.
What was the point of the refrendum if we're governed by EU law? What's the point of the ballot box at all?
ECHR is completely separate from the EU and was instigated by Winston Churchill. In his speech to the Congress, Churchill stated: “In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.” It was from this gathering that the ECHR began to take shape.
@davidbrunsdon3245 interesting that remainers want to stay in the ECHR though... EU isn't keen on democracy. ECHR is not easily controlled by the democratic system. I see a strong parallel.
@@johnjaw19 Control by the democratic system??😅😅 Do hear your self?? Who? Who would exactly control or check the Court of the ECHR?
ECHR is an international treaty and nothing to do with the EU.
Egotistical DG has made a name for himself as a remainer of all things litigious and if he were to back off (from ruining our country) then his career would be over. DG first, electorate last.
Instead of talking about human rights let’s talk about human responsibilities. It seems no one will take responsibility for their actions
So Grieve trots out the same arguments as he does for EU membership. "Yes it's bad in many ways, but Britain is such an evil country, we can't leave."
Leave the ECHR NEVER madness.
Agreed, we must leave; the ECHR is indeed madness.
It's a matter of the principle of sovereignty. I'm with JS on this.
UK: you don't tell me what to do!
By that logic u might wanna start with abolishing the monarchy. The UK's democracy is underpinned by compromise and the exercise of soft power, not by petulant prepubescent tantrums about perceived affront to national sovereignty. It's an international agreement between equal partners, not some catastrophic surrender.
So they don’t like the idea of our national parliament shouldering the responsibility of upholding our rights because that would be “nationalistic” or something? Instead they would prefer to hand these responsibilities over to lawyers in other countries.
Prepare for a long time in opposition.
There is no opposition, no difference between blue or red just following an agenda.
You got that right!
If I understand Jonathan Sumption correctly, he states that Belarus is a state party to the ECHR (@ 7:56). That is wrong.
No when he says “set their faces against” he simply means actively resisted joining or following the principles of ECHR I think
Lovely to hear a first class barrister demonstarte why he was first class - before joining the Tony Blair court .
in a word yes
British Twitism alive and well
These people talk shit!
A RESOUNDING 'YES' ........ STAYING-IN IS DOING MORE HARM TO THE UK THAN GOOD. WE'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO CONTROL OUR BORDERS IF WE REMAIN IN THE ECHR. 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
Leave the ECHR and one drunk stag night where you do nothing wrong but one of your mates does but you get arrested for it or an incident when on holiday in Europe and you get caught in the mayhem and wrongfully arrested. Then lets see what you think of ECHR when you have lost all your protections and are sat in a foreign cell wondering when you will get home. It's a two way street and you seem quite happy to throw away yours and other British citizens protections for what you think will be a solution. If we left the ECHR and we still could not control our borders then what? The reality is people who are trying to get here are often lied to by the traffickers and those lies will continue regardless of if we are in the ECHR or not.
Bring back capital punishment.
for Grieve? or
'Revenge murder'
Won't happen.
I find it hilarious that what he is saying that he doesn’t want to be under a international court that their government can just ignore! When they don’t like the ruling of the court!
Grieve’s benefit of soft power argument ref ECHR is ludicrous….
It illegal to be legal if you are legally illegal and therefore legally legal illegally!!!
Grieve can only speculate as to why, politicians at the time of signing, signed up to the ECHR. We were already a progressive European Nation; and successive Parliaments had been protecting our 'rights', through the improvement of conditions, well before the ECHR came along. It was, thus, of no benefit to the British to subscribe to an "international" form of scrutiny. This leaves us with the question originally asked as to why our politicians signed us up: and any answer has to take into account the GLOBALIST aspirations of many of those who consider themselves our "betters". This mindset - epitomised by Blair and Johnson - has been openly on display since December 2019: complete with all of the contempt and disdain for the indigenous inhabitants of this archipelago, which these 'superior forms of life' hold as a 'community'.
I don't think your position is a minority position, Jonathan. It is a problem with all Treaty courts which are not accountable to the legislature.
The gulf here is between someone who believes in the Common Law and someone who believes in the Enlightenment. That is, the Counter-Revolution versus the Revolution.
Lord Sumption as erudite and persuasive as ever. As “intrusive” as the ECHR may appear to be, what always worries me is the lack of an alternative suggested by the right wing press of the country when discussing it. Sumption argues against the ECHR on the grounds that the UK can deal with human rights issues perfectly well on our own. Much of the right wing press in the country seem to simply like the idea of there being less human rights legislation as if it is merely inconvenient to those who “have”.
No list of human rights can be sufficiently comprehensive: and the implication of such a list is that if something is not on the list, then it is not a right. Law should be prohibitive, not permissive: the function of law is to prevent us from harming one another.
British Law is like that - if it ain't forbidden you can do it. Au contraire Continental (Napoleonic) law needs a list of rights like you say. If it ain't specifically permitted you CAN'T do it:
"Napoleonic Code:- Anything not legally authorised or permissible is illegal to do. British Common Law:- Anything not specifically outlawed is lawfully doable."
Shows how essentially un-British Wokeism/socialism is. Let's bin it! By LAW! 🇬🇧
Basically it’s whether you want to be in the eu or not ,the people did not want to remain in it ,the political class on the whole did. That is why we still are subservient and not partners in our dealings with the EU ,an the court ,whether separate body or not is a European authority which has power over this sovereign state.💁♂️
It's pretty obvious from that where Dominic Grieve sits, in terms of Brexit.
Do not give up soveignty.
We are well down the road to Islamic dominance so why not go for it. Salaam allaikum.
We live under ✡
@@evolassunglasses4673 no, as always, we live under the super rich. This has never changed in human history. Sure sometimes the super rich have little hats, but often they don’t. The only labels that really matter in terms of power are rich and poor
Yes - just like "my" Denmark should.
Tea drinkers get some work done
the convention has NOT stopped Azerbaijan's genocidal attack on the Armenians. thisguy has hos head in the clouds. He should have no power or authority
Sorry, it is not a genocidal attack.
6:06 & 8:45- What are these sounds? 😂
Bring back corporal punishment for naughty unionists who can't read, won't read. Write out a million times, Don't dream it's over
I'm for staying in 😤❤
Sumption had his ass handed to him in this one. Rare to see.
What ?
You couldn't be more wrong.
@@3000waterman I could be more wrong -- if I took the opposite view
Is the interviewer here Nick Robinson's son?
For all the rhetoric of leaving EHCR, there never is talk of what to replace it with....!? Never a mention of a UK human rights act. All the same thing of lets scrap EU law then the "oh! that means woman's equal pay"
Let us leave the ECHR today.
There is an old saying that Names and natures do often agree. Dominic's surname tells us everything relevant that we need to know about him.
American communities are swamped with illegal invaders and our trajectory looks similar.
The ethos of the Biden administration is not Utilitarian i.e. does not aim at the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Instead they are endorsing behaviour that has led to greater lawlessness and widespread discontent : the greatest misery of the greatest number.
The mentality and corrupt ethics of the ECHR are similar to that of the Biden administration.
That is why the UK is in a similar predicament.
Whose side are you on Dominic ?
Imagine if we had political leaders as informed, intelligent and wise as Lord Sumption. The country would be in a much better place.
No.
Yes. The post 1945 Liberal paradigm is destroying the West.
YES!