I disagree, If the ECHR is an obstacle for the UK parliament to pursue a policy it wants, it is only logically correct to withdraw from the policy. If I drive, down a road and there's a police corden and they're saying I'm speeding but I want to keep my speed like i'm not speeding at all and I do, I crash it. Like that barrier that is defined as 'this' to be a human but I don't want others to follow the same rules.
@@Munchkintomthis implies the British government, and transitively speaking the a British people via the democratic mandate, are subordinate to a European convention. Why would this be the case?
@MDM1992 If you knew our history then you would be aware that Britain was the fore runner of most human rights. From Magna Carta, The rule of law, Habeas Corpus, Trial by jury, and the Bill of Rights, this country has a long tradition of freedom and human rights, in place long before the very existence of the ECHR. In fact it was mainly British lawyers who drafted many of the laws which the ECHR abides by. However, both they and the power of the court itself, having been hijacked by self interested parties such as human rights lawyers and NGOs, have exceeded their remit, and now interfere with the will of democratically elected governments. We don't want or need a foreign organisation telling us what to do, or determine right from wrong. That is something we have been doing ourselves for centuries, and will continue to do without oversight by the ECHR.
@@christinerussell113 Why would anyone with a fully working brain want to get rid of their rights to life, protection against slavery & forced labour, right to liberty & security, the right to a fair trial, rights for family and a private life, rights to education, rights to vote in elections, rights to protect their property, rights to freedom of movement ( not the ones contained in the EU ) ? Maybe we could just round all the “ leave the echr “ sheep and send them to the Falklands.
@@noelfleming3567no, they didn't. Which is why Britain, the home of Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, the rule of law, Trial by jury, the Bill of Rights, and a legal system respected and copied around the world, was asked to draft the laws which the ECHR abides by. Unfortunately, that court has been hijacked by various interested parties, such as so called human rights lawyers and NGOs, who have added to those laws, and extended the power of that court so that it now interferes with the will of democratically elected governments.
Don’t worry Jim. The ECHR just sits in the background protecting us. Our own HRA which is linked to it prevents the need to going to Strasbourg when the police want to lock you up for having breakfast in the cafe as they did with poor Tommy.
@@Bramfly can’t we have our own bill of rights like before the eu was even formed, or you in favour of every foreign criminal being allowed to stay here , bet you don’t wnt them as neighbours
Get your hands off our human rights , HRA 98 is the greatest piece of legislation we all have trust me , I love my human rights Love to you brothers and sisters
Only after a referendum on two versions of a British Bill of Rights. I do not trust any government whatsoever. One version should have free speech, opinions and thoughts without consequences. Then and only then would I be happy to leave the ECHR. British Bill Of Rights first.
"The Investigatory powers act 2016" breaks article 8 of the ECHR.... additional amendments, like client side scanning, continue to break article 8. "The On-line Safety bill" breaks article 10 of the ECHR. Being signed up to the ECHR is completely pointless when parliament is perfectly happy to selectively break it anyway. This discussion is moot.
Exit from the ECHR always has been on the critical path to dealing with mass migration. However it is necessary but not sufficient as for instance the UN refugee treaty needs exiting from along with a raft of domestic legislation. It should have been done straight after the Brexit referendum to create a fait accompli but instead we got woke mass migration T May with the NI agreement intentionally replaces EU sabotage of sovereignty with more of the same.
If the government are not willing to ignore the ECHR when making UK laws in the interests of its Citizens, then the answer is YES! We cannot have a foreign Court/organisation trying to override our Sovereignty!!
If leaving the ECHR means the UK can deport illegal immigrants and foreign criminals quicker than being in the ECHR then it would be better to leave it, the UK can write its own human rights. We cannot have unelected eu judges determining how the UK should run its own country.
If Rwanda bill gets block so I must say seriously reforms to be done within the Court. In this case I am in favour to pull it out! Please don't interfere or force us to stop to take complete control of our country because "WE" British people are too big to be bullied. We don't want to leave ECHC so please respect our policies which are in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998. Rwanda is indeed a safe country and the most prosperous country in central Africa.
What part of the ECHR do you disagree with? Right to life, security, freedom of thought and expression, to marry… it prohibits torture, death penalty, discrimination, slavery…?
For the NHS - NHS should be free for the ones that can not afford it people on Long Term Sick, insurance should be brought in like they do in America for the rest that includes people on UC (in America they have Medi Care and Medi Plus for the ones that are on benefits, you have to pay a small amount then the insurance covers the rest), then after this the people who work have insurance usually paid for by the Employer (if you are in with a good one), or part Employer part Yourself (with most companies). Oh look that would mean people would have to go back to work as well to get decent insurance.
@michealjago4869 Most Americans have inadequate insurance and may be bankrupted if a family member recieves extensive medical treatment. They pay hundreds of dollars per month and, still must be pay out of pocket for treatment.
Pull us out
Pulling out is never the answer.
Yes no court should tell us how to live. We already ken.
If the ECHR is an obstacle for the UK parliament to pursue the policy it wants, it is only logically correct to withdraw from the ECHR.
I disagree, If the ECHR is an obstacle for the UK parliament to pursue a policy it wants, it is only logically correct to withdraw from the policy. If I drive, down a road and there's a police corden and they're saying I'm speeding but I want to keep my speed like i'm not speeding at all and I do, I crash it. Like that barrier that is defined as 'this' to be a human but I don't want others to follow the same rules.
@@Munchkintomgo live in North Korea, you'd love it there, and certainly not welcome here.
@@Munchkintomthis implies the British government, and transitively speaking the a British people via the democratic mandate, are subordinate to a European convention. Why would this be the case?
@MDM1992 If you knew our history then you would be aware that Britain was the fore runner of most human rights. From Magna Carta, The rule of law, Habeas Corpus, Trial by jury, and the Bill of Rights, this country has a long tradition of freedom and human rights, in place long before the very existence of the ECHR. In fact it was mainly British lawyers who drafted many of the laws which the ECHR abides by. However, both they and the power of the court itself, having been hijacked by self interested parties such as human rights lawyers and NGOs, have exceeded their remit, and now interfere with the will of democratically elected governments. We don't want or need a foreign organisation telling us what to do, or determine right from wrong. That is something we have been doing ourselves for centuries, and will continue to do without oversight by the ECHR.
@@christinerussell113 Why would anyone with a fully working brain want to get rid of their rights to life, protection against slavery & forced labour, right to liberty & security, the right to a fair trial, rights for family and a private life, rights to education, rights to vote in elections, rights to protect their property, rights to freedom of movement ( not the ones contained in the EU ) ?
Maybe we could just round all the “ leave the echr “ sheep and send them to the Falklands.
Only 46 countries in the echr 😮 we had human rights before the eu even started 🙄
All of Europe had all d same rights 😂
@@noelfleming3567no, they didn't. Which is why Britain, the home of Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, the rule of law, Trial by jury, the Bill of Rights, and a legal system respected and copied around the world, was asked to draft the laws which the ECHR abides by. Unfortunately, that court has been hijacked by various interested parties, such as so called human rights lawyers and NGOs, who have added to those laws, and extended the power of that court so that it now interferes with the will of democratically elected governments.
Don’t worry Jim. The ECHR just sits in the background protecting us. Our own HRA which is linked to it prevents the need to going to Strasbourg when the police want to lock you up for having breakfast in the cafe as they did with poor Tommy.
ECHR is not an EU court. It is an European court, it very much protects the rights of UK citizens, think about which protections you lose.
@@Bramfly can’t we have our own bill of rights like before the eu was even formed, or you in favour of every foreign criminal being allowed to stay here , bet you don’t wnt them as neighbours
Get your hands off our human rights , HRA 98 is the greatest piece of legislation we all have trust me , I love my human rights
Love to you brothers and sisters
You're delusional.
Only after a referendum on two versions of a British Bill of Rights. I do not trust any government whatsoever.
One version should have free speech, opinions and thoughts without consequences. Then and only then would I be happy to leave the ECHR. British Bill Of Rights first.
Should gave done that and out of ECJ on 23rd June 2016!😊
"The Investigatory powers act 2016" breaks article 8 of the ECHR.... additional amendments, like client side scanning, continue to break article 8.
"The On-line Safety bill" breaks article 10 of the ECHR.
Being signed up to the ECHR is completely pointless when parliament is perfectly happy to selectively break it anyway. This discussion is moot.
Most definitely get out as quick as we can, we need to re-write our laws then, the UK needs a complete overhaul
Exit from the ECHR always has been on the critical path to dealing with mass migration. However it is necessary but not sufficient as for instance the UN refugee treaty needs exiting from along with a raft of domestic legislation. It should have been done straight after the Brexit referendum to create a fait accompli but instead we got woke mass migration T May with the NI agreement intentionally replaces EU sabotage of sovereignty with more of the same.
Another Tory mp resigned Dan poulton joined labour 😮will they have any left by the next election 🙄
Why are all these mps standing down maybe they know who will win the election
Yes they are anti British
@@gavinsmith9564you say that like treason and traitors do not exist..
Human rights are anti-British? Got it.
Why would it take years ? do it today...not next week..not next year, long winded cobblers.
Take years to pull out no it wouldn't just leave, done that simple.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😢
If the government are not willing to ignore the ECHR when making UK laws in the interests of its Citizens, then the answer is YES! We cannot have a foreign Court/organisation trying to override our Sovereignty!!
If leaving the ECHR means the UK can deport illegal immigrants and foreign criminals quicker than being in the ECHR then it would be better to leave it, the UK can write its own human rights.
We cannot have unelected eu judges determining how the UK should run its own country.
It doesn't mean the ECHR, it means leaving the council of Europe. We helped put the ECHR together. We're not going to be leaving the council.
No .. proudly walk out of ECHR...
What exactly is the ECHR going to do if we refuse to take any notice of them
Absolutely the sooner the better
If Rwanda bill gets block so I must say seriously reforms to be done within the Court.
In this case I am in favour to pull it out!
Please don't interfere or force us to stop to take complete control of our country because "WE" British people are too big to be bullied. We don't want to leave ECHC so please respect our policies which are in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998. Rwanda is indeed a safe country and the most prosperous country in central Africa.
What part of the ECHR do you disagree with? Right to life, security, freedom of thought and expression, to marry… it prohibits torture, death penalty, discrimination, slavery…?
For the NHS - NHS should be free for the ones that can not afford it people on Long Term Sick, insurance should be brought in like they do in America for the rest that includes people on UC (in America they have Medi Care and Medi Plus for the ones that are on benefits, you have to pay a small amount then the insurance covers the rest), then after this the people who work have insurance usually paid for by the Employer (if you are in with a good one), or part Employer part Yourself (with most companies). Oh look that would mean people would have to go back to work as well to get decent insurance.
@michealjago4869 Most Americans have inadequate insurance and may be bankrupted if a family member recieves extensive medical treatment. They pay hundreds of dollars per month and, still must be pay out of pocket for treatment.
Because American healthcare is a great model to go off.. 🤦♂️
Absolutely the sooner the better