Yesterday 07:27 PM
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 08:12 PM by C C.)
RELATED (scivillage): 170 'dangerous' foreign nationals cannot be deported ... Starmer admits 'no effective deterrent in the Channel' to stop migrants ... UK looking at Denmark model to cut illegal migration ... Mahmood to announce ‘sweeping reforms’ to tackle illegal migration
- - - - - - - - -
PREFACE: Keir Starmer is seeking changes to how the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) works. Unfortunately, given the underlying principles of the ECHR, it is unlikely that this attempt will succeed.
JACOB REES-MOGG
https://youtu.be/kAGlO0WP56U
VIDEO EXCERPTS: It is absolutely fascinating that the European Convention on Human Rights -- when it was first signed in 1950 -- includes no mention of democracy or elections. That comes in a protocol in 1952.
And this is a reminder that the European Convention on Human Rights is not a document rooted in democracy but rooted in super national power and in treaty obligations. It is not about democracy. It is not about the people. It is about the elite. In the current jargon, Davos man, not that Davos man existed in 1950.
It's interesting as a preamble to what's been happening in relation to the government's discussions to change the interpretation of the treaty and the way it's applied and the relationship between the court and member states.
What are they [Starmer administration] asking for? Well, they're asking for a number of things. They're asking for it to be easier to deport foreign criminals, that the concerns about inhuman and degrading treatment should be reasonable and proportionate, that it should be possible to send people to safe third countries...
[...] So they're looking to create more flexibility that member states have to pull at the edges on the rulings of ECHR. It's actually something that was thought to be very limited when we joined -- brought the ECHR into British law in the human rights act.
Now the question is will this have any chance of working? What will it actually do? [...] This isn't going to happen tomorrow. The European Court of Human Rights is not going to say tomorrow that you can send people to Rwanda or that you can send dangerous criminals back home because their right to family life has been lessened or that the difficulty they'll face in their home country is minor.
And we've had all sorts of things. You will know about the McNuggets case because I've discussed that on GB News. The trivial things that were deemed to be unreasonable to send people back to face, those won't change overnight, even if they ever do change.
But actually, there's a fundamental problem with the European Convention and the European Court. And that goes back to my first point. [...] the convention is not rooted in democracy.
[...] What happens in Europe with the European Convention on Human Rights is that an initial document was agreed in 1950 and 1952 and now all the member states can do is write letters saying will you think about this? They can't change the law. They can't vote to alter the law.
[...] And this seems to me a fundamental problem and a fundamental illegitimacy of the whole concept of European Human Rights. There's nothing wrong with it as a worthy objective, as a statement of aims, of things that you hope countries will do. But any legal system, anything that affects the daily life of us as citizens of the United Kingdom or of the government ought to be changeable.
[...] And that's why we should leave. We shouldn't leave just because I don't like some of the judgments. I wouldn't suggest that ... Voters can demand something different. But that's just not true with the European Convention. There is no means of enforcing change.
[...] that's why human rights as a concept do not work because they undermine the fundamental human right of democracy. And go back to my starting point. This convention is not grounded in democracy. It is grounded in super nationalism. An invalid super nationalism that has no basis and cannot be changed...
Starmer’s ECHR reset will fail ... https://youtu.be/kAGlO0WP56U
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/kAGlO0WP56U
- - - - - - - - -
PREFACE: Keir Starmer is seeking changes to how the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) works. Unfortunately, given the underlying principles of the ECHR, it is unlikely that this attempt will succeed.
JACOB REES-MOGG
https://youtu.be/kAGlO0WP56U
VIDEO EXCERPTS: It is absolutely fascinating that the European Convention on Human Rights -- when it was first signed in 1950 -- includes no mention of democracy or elections. That comes in a protocol in 1952.
And this is a reminder that the European Convention on Human Rights is not a document rooted in democracy but rooted in super national power and in treaty obligations. It is not about democracy. It is not about the people. It is about the elite. In the current jargon, Davos man, not that Davos man existed in 1950.
It's interesting as a preamble to what's been happening in relation to the government's discussions to change the interpretation of the treaty and the way it's applied and the relationship between the court and member states.
What are they [Starmer administration] asking for? Well, they're asking for a number of things. They're asking for it to be easier to deport foreign criminals, that the concerns about inhuman and degrading treatment should be reasonable and proportionate, that it should be possible to send people to safe third countries...
[...] So they're looking to create more flexibility that member states have to pull at the edges on the rulings of ECHR. It's actually something that was thought to be very limited when we joined -- brought the ECHR into British law in the human rights act.
Now the question is will this have any chance of working? What will it actually do? [...] This isn't going to happen tomorrow. The European Court of Human Rights is not going to say tomorrow that you can send people to Rwanda or that you can send dangerous criminals back home because their right to family life has been lessened or that the difficulty they'll face in their home country is minor.
And we've had all sorts of things. You will know about the McNuggets case because I've discussed that on GB News. The trivial things that were deemed to be unreasonable to send people back to face, those won't change overnight, even if they ever do change.
But actually, there's a fundamental problem with the European Convention and the European Court. And that goes back to my first point. [...] the convention is not rooted in democracy.
[...] What happens in Europe with the European Convention on Human Rights is that an initial document was agreed in 1950 and 1952 and now all the member states can do is write letters saying will you think about this? They can't change the law. They can't vote to alter the law.
[...] And this seems to me a fundamental problem and a fundamental illegitimacy of the whole concept of European Human Rights. There's nothing wrong with it as a worthy objective, as a statement of aims, of things that you hope countries will do. But any legal system, anything that affects the daily life of us as citizens of the United Kingdom or of the government ought to be changeable.
[...] And that's why we should leave. We shouldn't leave just because I don't like some of the judgments. I wouldn't suggest that ... Voters can demand something different. But that's just not true with the European Convention. There is no means of enforcing change.
[...] that's why human rights as a concept do not work because they undermine the fundamental human right of democracy. And go back to my starting point. This convention is not grounded in democracy. It is grounded in super nationalism. An invalid super nationalism that has no basis and cannot be changed...
Starmer’s ECHR reset will fail ... https://youtu.be/kAGlO0WP56U