Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    No, it doesn't. The EU has it's own judiciary.

    Russia is a party to the ECHR. It does not make them a member of the EU.
    The HRA isnt the ECHR. The HRA would be repealed

    http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/y...man-rights-act

    The ECHR isnt inherently binding
    "The Court has to date decided consistently that under the Convention it has no jurisdiction to annul domestic laws or administrative practices which violate the Convention"
    and the British havent ratified all the convention protocols anyway.

    The point is the ECHR must be adhered to in order to be a member state of the EU
    http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/echr.htm
    So we lose that obligation if we exit, the same as the quasi-obligation enforced by the ECA 1972

    The UK only has obligations to both treaties under the HRA;
    "2.1 The UK has been a member state of the Council of Europe since 1951, and haspermitted the right of individual petition before the European Court of HumanRights since 1966. Despite this, the Convention rights have only been enforceable indomestic courts since October 2000, when the HRA came into full effect across theUK.14 Prior to the implementation of the HRA, the ECHR rights could not bedirectly relied upon in domestic adjudication" (source - https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-u...ations/166.pdf)

    a statement made pre-2000
    "…the duty of the English Courts is to decide disputes in accordance with Englishdomestic law as it is, and not as it would be if full effect were given to thiscountry’s obligations under the Treaty … It follows from this that in most casesthe English courts will be wholly unconcerned with the terms of the Convention"
    ie the ECHR doesnt have any binding effect.

    All ECHR appeals are held in Strasbourg, HRA are held in England but in lieu of Strasbourg
    https://www.liberty-human-rights.org...act-mythbuster
    and this shows them both being redirected to the same court
    https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/th...nd-europe.html
    "However, in rare circumstances, the Supreme Court has effectively sent issues back to Strasbourg for reconsideration. For example, in 2009 the Court declined to follow a decision of the ECtHR in R v Horncastle."
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    The HRA isnt the ECHR. The HRA would be repealed
    No, it wouldn't. Stop lying.

    You would need permission from Scotland and every other state in the Union because the HRA is codfied within their laws.

    Even ignoring that issue, the ECHR is CODIFIED within the Good Friday Agreement (GFA). So you cannot leave without rewriting the entire GFA.

    So, stop talking *******s like Gove. It won't happen even if they leave the EU.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Yet one exclusively relies on the other as one is judiciary and one is legislature. We would lose any rights to enforce the HRA as it is not directly within the HRA legislation itself that we have to obey it as i showed, it is the EUCA 1972 that entrenches our obedience to the HRA which is what we are voting out of as it was the start of the political union.
    The ECHR is the court of the Council of Europe, which is not to do with the EU. The EU has its own judiciary, the pinnacle of which is the Court of Justice of the EU.

    The HRA is directly binding law, is it is an Act of Parliament. There is no choice on whether to follow it or not. What you're referring to is the European Convention of Human Rights, which is not directly binding but made so through the HRA.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    No, it wouldn't. Stop lying.

    You would need permission from Scotland and every other state in the Union because the HRA is codfied within their laws.

    Even ignoring that issue, the ECHR is CODIFIED within the Good Friday Agreement (GFA). So you cannot leave without rewriting the entire GFA.

    So, stop talking *******s like Gove. It won't happen even if they leave the EU.
    I'm assuming you literally didnt read a single source i provided because they all prove what im saying. No you wouldnt. They arent fully devolved. Also thats stupid, just because we leave it doesnt change their laws so therefore they have no invested interest and no right to comment in the same way when Greece was threatening to leave no British person went "But it'll mess with the British Human Rights" because that isnt a thing. If it was our sensationalist media would have jumped on it. That is in no way how codification or international law works.

    Its only from wikipedia but as a preliminary
    "The British government committed to incorporate the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) into the law of Northern Ireland and to the establishment of a Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. Setting statutory obligations for public authorities in Northern Ireland to carry out their work "with due regard to the need to promote equality of opportunity was set as a particular priority." The Irish government committed to "[taking] steps to further the protection of human rights in its jurisdiction" and to the establishment of an Irish Human Rights Commission"
    its part of Irish law because NI is part of Englands legislature. That wouldnt change if we exited so it is merely the same case as with Scotland and Wales, note how they committed to incorporate it not it was a part of the actual agreement. There would be no legal change to the GFA and even if there was it would require the amendment of one paragraph.

    This shows both that the out vote would render Strasbourg irrelevant and that it is entirely possible even with the GFA problems http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/05/12/...day-agreement/
    as ultimately the problem would be sidelined. If the politicians want it gone then it will be. The only sources i could find reporting this as disastrous were either Irish or quoted Sinn Fein so there are limited amounts of unbaised sources. I wont be naive enough to say its not going to be a problem this blog suggests Ireland and indeed Scotland could simply keep it due to their partly devolved nature
    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...an-rights-act/
    so the UK wont be in breach as Ireland still has the act enforced. However this account believes that there may be a requirement for consent from the devolved nations
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=2605487
    However the actual wording only says the British would help the Irish implement the agreement with no provision for further cooperation beyond that point so legally they have fufilled their obligation.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    I'm a......d their obligation.
    Look. Stop writing paragraphs of nonsense. It is not a complicated issue.

    I don't need to keep on going to mounds of copy and paste material.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    The ECHR is the court of the Council of Europe, which is not to do with the EU. The EU has its own judiciary, the pinnacle of which is the Court of Justice of the EU.

    The HRA is directly binding law, is it is an Act of Parliament. There is no choice on whether to follow it or not. What you're referring to is the European Convention of Human Rights, which is not directly binding but made so through the HRA.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think you may be right about the first part (i forgot the structure of the EU tbh i covered that a while ago).

    The HRA is not in essence binding. I cba to re-find the sources but go up a couple of replies and its there, we are not essentially bound by the HRA though we dont challenge it for the most part as ultimately in extreme cases we can be forcibly bound but this is incredibly rare it almost never happens. Conflict with Europe resultant would be inevitable so we have never pushed to reserves the right to punish failures to adhere which we cannot afford
    https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/th...nd-europe.html
    "However, in rare circumstances, the Supreme Court has effectively sent issues back to Strasbourg for reconsideration. For example, in 2009 the Court declined to follow a decision of the ECtHR in R v Horncastle."

    we are not bound in essence
    https://www.liberty-human-rights.org...ghts-act-works
    http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/...s-echr-leveson
    http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/10...-human-rights/
    "Pursuasive but not binding"

    we are only obligated to take HRA judgements into account, this as shown in Horncastle is a debated point but it does ultimately allow the courts freedom to override common law from Europe, particularly as European Common Law is looked at purposively.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Look. Stop writing paragraphs of nonsense. It is not a complicated issue.

    I don't need to keep on going to mounds of copy and paste material.
    In other words you dont have a counter for what I'm saying. All the points are written for you, the copy and paste sources is to show the authority of my statements so you cant go "citation or didnt happen" as people commonly do. Whether or not you follow the sources is up to you, i couldnt care less as all the relevant information is written for you.

    The material facts really are very simple, HRA and ECHR will become irrelevant, GFA is a minor legal problem as the agreement is worded in such a way that there is no implication of continuance.

    EDIT - Also not a complicated issue? Dont be ridiculous
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    In other words you dont have a counter for what I'm saying.
    No. I said write properly or don't bother.

    You just did it again. In response to 3 lines you write 3 paragraphs.

    Not ONE of your links even addresses the NI Good Friday Agreement issue. The Good Friday Agreement incorporates the ECHR. Therefore, it cannot be repealed without all parties agreeing again.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    No. I said write properly or don't bother.

    You just did it again. In response to 3 lines you write 3 paragraphs.

    Not ONE of your links even addresses the NI Good Friday Agreement issue. The Good Friday Agreement incorporates the ECHR. Therefore, it cannot be repealed without all parties agreeing again.
    It is written properly. Its in English with grammar and using a structure. What sort of non point is that? The reason it is partly copy and pasted is because the point is made more eloquently by people smarter than myself.

    Are you trying to sell yourself as stupid? You're trying to have a debate but are bemoaning reading an alternate point of view because its a bit long and, technically your last reply and indeed this one is three paragraphs as i'm assuming this is a competition for the most pointless statement ever made. I write as much as is necessary to respond, if you cba to read it then dont but replying that im writing too much is a ridiculous thing to do.

    Not one of my links, all of which you read in the six minutes before you replied. One of the sources literally has "new-british-bill-of-rights-would-alter-the-good-friday-agreement/" in its address line so how exactly do you imagine that doesnt address the GFA? Not to mention damned if i do damned if i dont. If i write anything its too long, you wont read my sources and you wont read abstracts from the sources. Wtf is the point then? You are just wrapping yourself in a blanket of ignorance.

    That is a potential problem. Again note that the wording of the legislation doesnt imply continued commitment and the devolved nature may allow the parties to remain privy to the HRA (which isnt binding anyway) as you yourself said in a similar way to how Russia is part of the ECHR but not of every part of europe.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    It is written properly. Its in English with grammar and using a structure. What sort of non point is that? The reason it is partly copy and pasted is because the point is made more eloquently by people smarter than myself.
    .
    Hahahaha. You did it again.

    You don't even understand what you are copy and pasting. That is the issue

    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    One of the sources literally has "new-british-bill-of-rights-would-alter-the-good-friday-agreement/" in its address line so how exactly do you imagine that doesnt address the GFA? .
    That is because it proves what I am saying and directly contradicts what you are saying.

    http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/05/12/...day-agreement/

    " In addition, legislative consent motions by the devolved government to fresh ‘repatriating’ UKECHR legislation would by no means automatically be forthcoming. If a UK government wished nonetheless to go ahead, it might be able to do so in respect of England only. This would not only frustrate its intentions but also risk increasing sentiment in the rest of the UK in favour of further weakening or even leaving the union. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission originated in the Belfast Agreement, an international treaty. Opposition to any attempt to water down the Agreement’s guarantees could be expected to be particularly strong, and have repercussions on the stability of the 1998 peace settlement as well as implications for the UK’s relations with the Republic of Ireland "

    No where does it say
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    this shows that the out vote would render Strasbourg irrelevant and that it is entirely possible even with the GFA problems
    It says the complete opposite. The GFA would create significant opposition.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Hahahaha. You did it again.

    You don't even understand what you are copy and pasting. That is the issue



    That is because it proves what I am saying and directly contradicts what you are saying.

    http://sluggerotoole.com/2015/05/12/...day-agreement/

    " In addition, legislative consent motions by the devolved government to fresh ‘repatriating’ UKECHR legislation would by no means automatically be forthcoming. If a UK government wished nonetheless to go ahead, it might be able to do so in respect of England only. This would not only frustrate its intentions but also risk increasing sentiment in the rest of the UK in favour of further weakening or even leaving the union. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission originated in the Belfast Agreement, an international treaty. Opposition to any attempt to water down the Agreement’s guarantees could be expected to be particularly strong, and have repercussions on the stability of the 1998 peace settlement as well as implications for the UK’s relations with the Republic of Ireland "

    No where does it say

    It says the complete opposite. The GFA would create significant opposition.
    Now you're just being a ****.

    It would be able to do so in respect to England only. That is what you just quoted at me and that is what i said in the last three replies ie the GFA isnt an issue because Ireland can choose to remain privy to the HRA. That is verbatim what i wrote last time. As for the may do this or could cause that, all of that is assertion. The only material fact of law is it is possible for england to exit and Ireland to remain concerning the HRA as i said at the beginning
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Now you're just being a ****.

    It would be able to do so in respect to England only. That is what you just quoted at me and that is what i said in the last three replies ie the GFA isnt an issue because Ireland can choose to remain privy to the HRA. That is verbatim what i wrote last time. As for the may do this or could cause that, all of that is assertion. The only material fact of law is it is possible for england to exit and Ireland to remain concerning the HRA as i said at the beginning

    No. Stop saying HRA. It is not the HRA. They want to get rid of the ECHR. If you get rid of the ECHR then the HRA automatically goes.

    The English are not going exit because it creates a 2 tier legal system of Human Rights in the UK which would be idiotic. Not even the most stupid conservative wants that.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    No. Stop saying HRA. It is not the HRA. They want to get rid of the ECHR. If you get rid of the ECHR then the HRA automatically goes.

    The English are not going exit because it creates a 2 tier legal system of Human Rights in the UK which would be idiotic. Not even the most stupid conservative wants that.
    The ECHR has no legal authority in the UK. The GFA signed up to the HRA, the HRA is the relevant act because it actually applies, albeit without being binding.

    How does it create a two tier anything? It means that devolved nations have different laws which is entirely the point.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    The ECHR has no legal authority in the UK. The GFA signed up to the HRA, the HRA is the relevant act because it actually applies, albeit without being binding.
    No, the ECHR has had legal authority for a long time.

    Before the HRA, people had to go to Europe to get access to the ECHR.

    The point of the HRA was to stop wasting people's time and money and to incorporate the ECHR into British courts and laws.


    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    How does it create a two tier anything? It means that devolved nations have different laws which is entirely the point.
    We are not different nations. This is the same nation. You cannot have the same people in the same nation having different rights without an overall Supreme constitution like in the US.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    No, the ECHR has had legal authority for a long time.

    Before the HRA, people had to go to Europe to get access to the ECHR.

    The point of the HRA was to stop wasting people's time and money and to incorporate the ECHR into British courts and laws.




    We are not different nations. This is the same nation. You cannot have the same people in the same nation having different rights without an overall Supreme constitution like in the US.
    I've already shown this to be false.

    So what is devolution then? Its by definition places making their own laws and laws infer rights so any form of legislation infers a right.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    I've already shown this to be false.
    Well, you didn't. You provided one example where the Supreme Court wrote back to the EC.

    That doesn't change the fact it has legal authority in the UK and all European jusdgments must be taken into account.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    I think you may be right about the first part (i forgot the structure of the EU tbh i covered that a while ago).

    The HRA is not in essence binding. I cba to re-find the sources but go up a couple of replies and its there, we are not essentially bound by the HRA though we dont challenge it for the most part as ultimately in extreme cases we can be forcibly bound but this is incredibly rare it almost never happens. Conflict with Europe resultant would be inevitable so we have never pushed to reserves the right to punish failures to adhere which we cannot afford
    https://www.supremecourt.uk/about/th...nd-europe.html
    "However, in rare circumstances, the Supreme Court has effectively sent issues back to Strasbourg for reconsideration. For example, in 2009 the Court declined to follow a decision of the ECtHR in R v Horncastle."

    we are not bound in essence
    https://www.liberty-human-rights.org...ghts-act-works
    http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/...s-echr-leveson
    http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/10...-human-rights/
    "Pursuasive but not binding"

    we are only obligated to take HRA judgements into account, this as shown in Horncastle is a debated point but it does ultimately allow the courts freedom to override common law from Europe, particularly as European Common Law is looked at purposively.
    No, you don't understand what I'm saying. The HRA is English law, made by the British Parliament itself to incorporate the ECHR into domestic law. The act itself is binding - the courts must follow it at all times. They may not apply it when they deem it extremely irrational in some cases, but that is inherent in the judicial discretion and not on the act.

    All Parliament law is binding - the HRA itself is not EU law.

    By the way, the abbreviation ECtHR is used to refer to the court, to differentiate it from the convention.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, you didn't. You provided one example where the Supreme Court wrote back to the EC.

    That doesn't change the fact it has legal authority in the UK and all European jusdgments must be taken into account.
    I provided multiple examples showing the ECHR isnt relevant in Britain
    "Significant compromises were made so as to reduce the loss of sovereignty. Underthe final text of the ECHR, no signatory was bound to accept either the right ofindividuals to take a case to Strasbourg (the right of ‘individual petition’) or thejurisdiction of the (yet to be established) Court - and the majority, including the UK,accepted neither" http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/s...man_rights.pdf

    The ECHR isnt inherently binding
    "The Court has to date decided consistently that under the Convention it has no jurisdiction to annul domestic laws or administrative practices which violate the Convention"
    and the British havent ratified all the convention protocols anyway.

    The point is the ECHR must be adhered to in order to be a member state of the EU
    http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/echr.htm
    So we lose that obligation if we exit, the same as the quasi-obligation enforced by the ECA 1972

    Yes but taken into account isnt a binding legal point, we could still as I originally said pull out of both Europe and the HRA quite easily as we arent even bound by it currently for example prisoners not being allowed to vote.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *Stefan*)
    No, you don't understand what I'm saying. The HRA is English law, made by the British Parliament itself to incorporate the ECHR into domestic law. The act itself is binding - the courts must follow it at all times. They may not apply it when they deem it extremely irrational in some cases, but that is inherent in the judicial discretion and not on the act.

    All Parliament law is binding - the HRA itself is not EU law.

    By the way, the abbreviation ECtHR is used to refer to the court, to differentiate it from the convention.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The HRA is as law fundamentally based out of Strasbourg https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/law/...umanRights.pdf
    It just means the cases can be held in the UK for practicalities sake.

    Its an advancement of the ECHR to 'bring it home' but the law isnt fundamentally binding as it merely incorporated the ECHR rules into British jurisdiction maintaining that "In particular, the Act makes it unlawful for any public body to act in a way which is incompatible with the Convention, unless the wording of any other primary legislation provides no other choice". ie if the govt legislates differently then the act is irrelevant. Its basis is still in European Law but the HRA itself was passed in English parliament but as it defers conditions for ECHR judgements it still cannot be bound by the ECtHR

    (I know its supposed to be ECtHR, tiredness is ruining my ability to proof read lol)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    The HRA is as law fundamentally based out of Strasbourg https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/law/...umanRights.pdf
    It just means the cases can be held in the UK for practicalities sake.

    Its an advancement of the ECHR to 'bring it home' but the law isnt fundamentally binding as it merely incorporated the ECHR rules into British jurisdiction maintaining that "In particular, the Act makes it unlawful for any public body to act in a way which is incompatible with the Convention, unless the wording of any other primary legislation provides no other choice". ie if the govt legislates differently then the act is irrelevant. Its basis is still in European Law but the HRA itself was passed in English parliament but as it defers conditions for ECHR judgements it still cannot be bound by the ECtHR

    (I know its supposed to be ECtHR, tiredness is ruining my ability to proof read lol)
    That doesn't have to do with it not being binding. This is simply the rule that Parliament is sovereign, and any new act supersedes the previous if the two contradict. This is true of any other act currently.

    Nonetheless, this depends entirely on the courts, and they tend to make legislation abide to the convention even if the original act may be somewhat contrary. One notabe example is Ghaidan v Mendoza.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.