Dangerous Policy from Suella Braverman

[regis80]

Spouting lies again about how leaving EHCR is going to help evict foreign criminals, but really they are in the pockets of billionaires that want to diminish the working folks rights. Just look at what they did in Argentina.
If Denmark can deport criminals so can we, do not believe the utter trash coming from Cruella. Remember when they said Brexit would solve this, let’s not be so fickle again shall we.

Have a good weekend everyone.

[kettering_baggie]

The ECHR is in need of revision, to bring it in line with the current World situation. Surely, a government should be able to pass laws that are in the interests of the country? The ECHR should not prevent a country acting in its national interest, especially where there are security concerns.

[baggiematt]

The ECHR is in need of revision, to bring it in line with the current World situation. Surely, a government should be able to pass laws that are in the interests of the country? The ECHR should not prevent a country acting in its national interest, especially where there are security concerns.

Which rules of it would you change Ketts?

[regis80]

All laws need reform and that?s what the international community should be doing.. ECHR may seem unfit for purpose but it does give us a lot of protection. If Denmark can abide by EcHR, why can?t we? The excuse Cruella is using because they couldn?t ship asylum seekers to rwanda wasn?t an EHCR issue.

[Omegstrat6]

Dislike Braverman who is spouting the same tosh she did as Home Secretary.

As for the ECHR, I personally feel that it would be wrong to come out of it. Changes need to happen, but these are best made from within rather than to simply leave. Inspired by the earlier Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) it's primary aim was to protect European members from a repeat of the horrors of WW2 and I would be very surprised if anyone on here did not agree with it's primary 18 Articles (look them up if you don't know them) which, I would argue, also correlate to British "values".

Of course, much has changed since the inception of the ECHR in 1950 and from when Blair incorporated it into UK law in 1998 and it is hard to disagree that the European Court has not over reached its mandate in several cases but it is a lie that being a member of the ECHR means that member countries cannot protect themselves or that it actively enables immigration to the extent claimed by the likes of Braverman or Farage.

Given the current high profile of immigration concerns across much of Europe, many member countries are presently working to make changes/ amendments to the system which would make deportations easier but that still does not mean that claims by the right are true. For example, only 1% of appeals by those threatened with deportation from the UK for criminal activity have been upheld-far less than the figure that Nige would have you believe.

I understand why some might argue that we should leave and can set up our own UK Human Rights Act but in these times of global instability I believe it is better to strengthen our ties with Europe rather than weaken them. Moreover, the ECHR is a shared and agreed set of protections for individuals in any member country which helps protect them from authoritarian governments that might set out to curb their basic rights which was the whole point of it in the first place. Surely, only a country like Russia would not want to sign up to this?