Fucking finally!

Plan is to introduce a British Bill of Rights which would give UK courts primacy in interpreting the ECHR, making the courts in Strasbourg more advisory than binding and limited to the most serious of cases. Tories want to stay in the ECHR, but they have said that if an agreement cannot be made then the UK will leave.

I'm personally glad this is happening; all of this bullshit about giving prisoners the vote and not being able to deport Abu Qatada because of his "right to a family".

I wouldn't celebrate until we get to read the replacement, this could either be a good thing (i.e, bye bye captain hook you scummy shit) or something less enjoyable. With the baboon at the helm, I don't have much optimism. With any luck the retard will be too inept to do anything and will leave it up to subordinates.

As much as its fun to bash the Tories, or politicians in general, I highly doubt they're going to eviscerate our rights and start building gulags in the West Midlands.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on May 12, 2015, 02:47:48 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on May 12, 2015, 02:44:39 PM

I wouldn't celebrate until we get to read the replacement, this could either be a good thing (i.e, bye bye captain hook you scummy shit) or something less enjoyable. With the baboon at the helm, I don't have much optimism. With any luck the retard will be too inept to do anything and will leave it up to subordinates.

As much as its fun to bash the Tories, or politicians in general, I highly doubt they're going to eviscerate our rights and start building gulags in the West Midlands.

Yeah I know lol, I'm more concerned about the genius leaving gaping big loopholes in it that allow the run around to continue. I'd much rather see a technocrat do that job, someone who has lived and breathed ECHR/Yoomun Roights shit professionally for their career and would then be less likely to bollocks it all up.

Politicians just tend to give broad, sweeping ideas. It's the civil service that'll really pull this off.

I read the document, and I'm glad that we don't have to put up with the ECHR bullshit of "you can't deport a suspected/known terrorist because he has a brother/mother/father/pet here." It was getting frustrating.

The only caveat I take is with the implications of harsher punishment for drug possession though.

This could be a very bad idea, especially for a country stereotyped as being a nanny state. I would not be happy about this.

How is trying to achieve greater national sovereignty to curtail the rights of those largely deemed undesirable getting closer to a "nanny state"? Especially under the Tories.

I'm pretty sure that the right to respect for family life had nothing to do wit hthe Qatada case.

Thought I read it in the FT article, but apparently not. Can't fucking remember where I got that from.

It's like they're automatically assuming the Tories are going to start torturing people and raping their families.

I assume everyone is going to start torturing people and raping their families. Especially myself. Never did trust that bastard.

Eh, I didn't realize that post would be so long. Apologies and props to you if you read through all of it.

Thing is though, the Tories aren't actually gunning to leave the ECHR. They just want British courts to have primacy in interpreting it.

Not sure if this is good or bad... it sounds bad. If they are going to replace/have a localised reform of it, it better be fucking good as at the moment it's just going to alienate the UK further from the EU.

>implying distance between the UK and EU is a bad thing

Quote from: SuperIrish on May 12, 2015, 07:33:13 PM

Not sure if this is good or bad... it sounds bad. If they are going to replace/have a localised reform of it, it better be fucking good as at the moment it's just going to alienate the UK further from the EU.

Just gonna point out real quick that the ECtHR technically has nothing to do with the EU.

Well that's awfully odd.

But yeah, they're strictly speaking not related and the UK leaving the ECHR would not change anything about its membership of the EU, even though it would send a certain message.

Thanks for taking the time to clear the confusion for me. But that ^ was what I was concerned about. It may not be a requirement to accept it to be in the EU, but scrapping a policy that is generally accepted within the EU as it's default legislature for human rights is not gonna look good.