New publication recommends the UK withdraws from the European Convention on human rights

Leading specialist in European laws, Martin Howe KC, has published the case for leaving the European Convention on human rights.

I have not myself argued this case, and have sought to get the government to overcome the potential difficulties of the way the Court interprets and widens the original convention in the vexed case of illegal migration. There I and other MPs have proposed amendments to legislation where Parliament needs to  assert itself against possible ECHR overturns of policy.  The wish to end the small boats trade and to send the illegals somewhere else safe for consideration of their cases is one such area.   There is an argument going on in government about using such a domestic legal override given the importance of the issue, with the former Home Secretary and the current Migration Minister thinking there does need to  be a Notwithstanding clause to ensure the will of Parliament is upheld in the event of someone trying to appeal to a foreign court or under an international convention.


Those of us who favour a limited exemption for a clearly required policy like stopping the small boats can point to Parliament’s success in resisting votes for prisoners. The ECHR told us to grant them and the UK parliament voted not to. We stayed in the Convention. Other countries with democracies and decent human rights have disagreed and not accepted verdicts as well and stayed in the overall scheme

The UK was one of the original drafters and instigators of the Convention on human rights. It was aimed at general state policy, to foster more democracies and  countries with a rule of law after the horror of Nazi and communist tyrannies in war torn Europe. It was only later the ECHR started to widen the remit to give individuals rights against governments justiciable in that court, instead of it staying at a high level assessment of a country’s democracy and civil rights achieved through national democratic process.


Martin Howe argues that a true Parliamentary democracy needs a sovereign people who delegate power between elections to a sovereign Parliament. What the people and Parliament want should be good law and upheld as such. This cannot be true if there is an international external body that can effectively strike down domestic law. He is happy to rely on the UK Parliament and elections to determine our civil liberties and rights, and thinks there can be no guarantee that we can stop the small boats or carry through other desirable policies all the time we stay in the Convention which has changed and grown in power a lot since we first helped invent it.

I would b e interested to hear your thoughts on these two different approaches.



  1. Wanderer
    November 22, 2023

    Would a government hell-bent on giving away its power and citizens’ rights to the WHO leave the ECHR?

    Our politicians are globalists, not nationalists. Most citizens are nationalists, not globalists, when they stop to think about it.

    1. Peter
      November 22, 2023

      Yes a decent sovereign nation state should be capable of making its own laws. So Howe’s stance makes sense.

      Anyway, action is required to stop us being invaded. More talk about how to go about it is an infuriating distraction.

      1. Ian+wrag
        November 22, 2023

        As 90% of Westminster is pro EU we will never leave the ECHR as it is a requirement if EU membership.
        The latest betrayal is to give pandemic powers to the Chicom run WHO. Anything rather than stand on our own two feet.
        Immigration above 700,000 and that’s taking control. As there’s no growth perhaps you should aim for 2 million next year. You know the definition of madness…..

      2. Cynic
        November 22, 2023

        Howe is correct. We do not need foreign bodies to ensure our freedoms and way of life. We can set a good example for others without subjecting ourselves to international courts and agreements.

      3. Michelle
        November 22, 2023

        Quite so. A deliberate policy. It has been going on for so long now is it any wonder people are coming to the same conclusion.

    2. Sharon
      November 22, 2023

      I agree Wanderer! The silent majority are nationalists not globalists; also more conservative in that wokism is not popular with most people!

      The media would have us think otherwise!

    3. RichardP
      November 22, 2023

      +1 Wanderer.
      You make a very good point.

    4. Denis Cooper
      November 22, 2023

      Reading this:

      it is once again clear that our political establishment do not believe in our national sovereignty and democracy.

      1. hefner
        November 22, 2023

        This whole document is ridiculous. The first point has only its first half correct, its seconf half is not. Then points 2 to 9 have nothing to do with the WHO content about the original or pending new International Health Regulations (IHRs).
        See, 10/07/2023 ‘Disease X – This is how we should prepare for the next big virus’., 26/05/2023 ‘WHO Pandemic Treaty: what is it and how will it save lives in the future?’.

        Isn’t it better, Denis, to go to the original information instead of a pre-digested ‘’ one?

        1. Denis Cooper
          November 23, 2023


    5. Ian B
      November 22, 2023

      @Wanderer +1
      The anti-democracy Parliament, now without legitimacy and purpose

  2. BW
    November 22, 2023

    The ECHR is out dated. It is abused by unscrupulous lawyers and serves only those that wish this country harm. Whether that be a criminal or illegal immigrant or terrorist. I am not advocating the blanket ban on the rights of individuals but it needs to be replaced with a U.K. bill of rights which is linked to personal responsibility. Like what we were promised in another Tory lie. The EHCR has been abused for so long now you could argue that the rights of the law abiding in the U.K. to live in a safe environment have been abolished instead.

    1. Bloke
      November 22, 2023

      No Bill of Rights is needed. Sensible laws are simpler and based on stating: Don’t.
      They already enable people the right to do everything else legally.

    2. IanT
      November 22, 2023

      I would be far more willing to beleive that they were serious about sorting this out if the level of legal migration was being managed at some sensible level – but it is clearly not.
      The current minimum salary requirement for migrants is £26,200 per year (or £10.75 per hour) – and this government has just annonced a new minimum wage for 2024 as being £11 per hour (£27k pa). How is setting the minimum salary for immigrants at the legal minimum providing any chance of either restricting numbers or improving it’s quality? Apparently the Net Migration number this year is going to be 700,000+ – How long can we continue like this? But this government will just kick it down the road and let Labour sort it out (and there’s no chance of that happening!)
      Sorry Sir John – your lot don’t deserve to govern but unfortunately I can’t see any better alternatives.
      We are well screwed I’m afraid.

    3. Ian B
      November 22, 2023

      It was never in ‘date’ its sole purpose was to remove the point of democracy from individuals and their Countries. It seeks to remove the purpose of a ‘free people’ and seeks enslavement of them for the benefit of the unelected unaccountable bureaucrat’s

    4. John Hatfield
      November 22, 2023

      It seems to me that the ECHR works against the country’s citizens and for those of doubtful legality.
      Does not the United Kingdom already have its own laws on human rights? I’m for quitting.

  3. Lifelogic
    November 22, 2023

    I am largely with Marin Howe KC. Though a true democracy should not even delegate power between elections to MP’s in Parliament (this as they never do what they promised to do anyway once in power voters and manifestos are largely forgotten for circa 4 years. Much more direct democracy is needed the people are right far more often than MP who rarely act in the interests of the people, they have their own interests. Witness how many MPs attended parliament when debating their pay or expenses and how few on matters of importance to voter like the net harm Covid “vaccines”. Also FPTP prevents voters even voting for their preferred Candidate very often unless you want to waste you vote. This as you end up having to vote for the most likely candidate to stop X getting in.

    The proposal that appallingly Sunak is clearly happy with, to give even more powers to the disaster that is the unaccountable WHO is dreadful and hugely anti-democratic.

    1. Lifelogic
      November 22, 2023

      Sunak’s economic plan has been vindicated
      I learnt my politics at the feet of Margaret Thatcher. The PM’s approach is one she would have understood
      says MICHAEL HOWARD.

      Well he has managed to half the inflation his QE and economic mismanagement caused as Chancellor I suppose but still inflation is way above target. No progress on his other promises at all not even trying it seems. Growth, Government debt, stopping the boats (net immigration 700k) or NHS waiting lists nearly 8 million.

      Thatcher failed to cut taxes sufficiently nor did she sort out the dire NHS system and she joined the ERM against wise advice not to.

    2. Lifelogic
      November 22, 2023

      Hunt is making much of his nearly 10% increase in the minimum wage as if he were giving this away. So what is this increase but another tax increase and a great way to push inflation up. About 45% goes directly back to the government in tax and NI both types and comp. pension contributions too, then many of the employees get a loss of benefits too as earning more. The company is circa £2k per employee worse off & so has to increase prices significantly if they can causing inflation. If the market will not bare this they go bust or have to fire people.

      It is not just minimum wage people either they will have to give the others circa 10% too.

      1. Lifelogic
        November 22, 2023

        It also make them rather less likely to take anyone else on. Many employee just do not all that much value to the businesses.

    3. rose
      November 22, 2023

      The fake inquiry looks to me as if it is steering us that way.

    4. Ian B
      November 22, 2023

      It is not FPTP that is at fault, it the use ‘gang’ leaders to dictate who should represent you and not your community. The alternatives to FPTP all point to have the minority in charge, through coalitions, the tail wags the dog.
      If candidates that stand to represent you were selected by your community and funded in their campaigns by your community, you stand a better chance of having someone that represents you in Parliament.
      As it stands the main ‘Gang’ leaders get to take taxpayer money to support their cause to fight of any outsider. The outsider while theoretically possible can stand in elections, they face a mountain of taxpayer funding to support the status quo.

    5. Lynn Atkinson
      November 22, 2023

      People are manipulated in direct democracy by those who produce the referendum questions. So it works out worse than representatives in Parliament which we can sack if they displease.

      1. Mitchel
        November 23, 2023

        You can’t sack the REAL government.Emperors of the later Roman Empire found that out the hard way after they had bureaucratised the empire – they thought that process would increase control of the provinces but in effect it produced alternative power bases in day to day control of key functions.

  4. Barbara Ramskill
    November 22, 2023

    I think he is right.

  5. DOM
    November 22, 2023

    The ECHR aids and abets politicians with harmful intent towards the UK. There are those in Parliament and within the establishment who seek to use mass immigration to change the heart, culture and soul of this nation and they’ll use the ECHR to justify the continued importation of those unsuitable to living in this once democratic nation. Some call it multiculturalism, some call it Cultural Marxism, some call it progressive identity politics, I call it pure spite and pure hate…and thanks to the complicit Tories these bigots are achieving their sinister aim

    Our good name, our freedoms and our safety sacrificed on the altar of a left wing agenda of realignment and slow strangulation

    thanks Tory party, thanks a lot

  6. R.Grange
    November 22, 2023

    SJR: Your alternative to the KC’s view is the one that hasn’t worked on illegal migration (“the small boats”, as you put it). By refusing to agree to the Notwithstanding clause, the PM is making sure your approach won’t work. As an internationalist, he has no problem with an international body overruling our law and Parliament.

  7. agricola
    November 22, 2023

    Briefly I would advocate staying in the ECHR if only for mainining the political wallpaper of something we in effect created and whose original purpose remains valid. Yet as a democracy I would retain the right to exert sovereign power where the self grandisment of expanded ECHR powers conflicted with our sovereign interests. Almost any organisation or department given a title, office and desk will wish to grow to fulfill its own sense of power and self importance. Such is the ECHR.

  8. Will in Hampshire
    November 22, 2023

    Whether or not this country played a historical role in drafting this convention (or any other international agreement) is irrelevant in my opinion. The past is another country, they do things differently there.

  9. Richard1
    November 22, 2023

    An academic question as there is very little chance of the govt agreeing a withdrawal, at least not before all other routes are tried. I would suggest withdrawal – or more likely putting withdrawal in the manifesto – if it is very clear from competent private polling that there would be overwhelming public support. The left and the blob would be in uproar and would mobilise all their forces against it. The BBC would run a massive campaign against it. So it would a battle worth fighting only if it was clear it could be won and only if it was actually worth winning.

    We are -20% in the polls now. The govt should be doing only those things which are very clear vote winners. Getting the economy moving via tax cuts is the most sensible thing. Other initiatives need to be very selective indeed.

  10. Sharon
    November 22, 2023

    The ECHR was, as you say, Sir John, set up to aid fleeing Europeans after the war. I don’t think it was intended to give safe haven to the whole world, which is entirely impractical. It is absurd to expect all and sundry from any where in the world to have a legal to stay! The law has been wholly mis-used by leftie lawyers.

    I don’t entirely think coming out of the ECHR alone will resolve the problem as other migrant treaties will likely be used as an excuse.

    So maybe a UK bill of rights is the way forward.

  11. Donna
    November 22, 2023

    “and the current Migration Minister thinking there does need to be a Notwithstanding clause to ensure the will of Parliament is upheld in the event of someone trying to appeal to a foreign court or under an international convention.”
    That would be the Notwithstanding Clause which Sunak rejected which Suella Braverman wanted. What an utterly pathetic little creep he is.

    The Not-a-Conservative-Party hasn’t got the guts to leave the ECHR. Most of its MPs and members of the House of Frauds aren’t remotely conservative ….. and over the last 13 years they’ve refused to implement any conservative policies whatsoever.

    As Sir John knows full well, the ECHR is only one of the rings that bind us. Another is the UN Refugee Convention and the UN Global Compact for Immigration which the awful Theresa May signed us up to with no mandate.

    700,000 MORE “legal” immigrants (net) in ONE year is due to be announced tomorrow, if the Express is to be believed. So much for the Manifesto “promise” that immigration would be CONTROLLED AND REDUCED.

    And now the Treacherous Tories intend to give the WHO the power to control all our lives; destroy our economy; stop us travelling and mandate dodgy jabs on behalf of Big Pharma.

    The final ring to bind us all in the darkness.

  12. MPC
    November 22, 2023

    It’s all academic anyway. Even if Mr Sunak pledged ECHR withdrawal there are insufficient Conservative MPS willing to support it by parliamentary vote. Kier Starmer and Labour have in any case pledged to scrap the small boat ‘policy’. In the meantime only instant offshoring (not outsourcing to a foreign government) of asylum claimants to UK controlled territory – immediately upon arrival of the migrants – and rigorous assessment there by properly trained civil servants, would be legally sound and have material effect. This won’t happen so the government charade is set to continue.

  13. Roy Grainger
    November 22, 2023

    An interesting philosophical debate but as there’s a majority in Parliament who oppose leaving the ECHR and I assume that included both the Foreign Secretary and the PM it is purely hypothetical.

    1. formula57
      November 22, 2023

      @ Roy Grainger – true enough most likely but the same could have been said about prospects for Brexit.

  14. Charles Breese
    November 22, 2023

    I support the Martin Howe stance. We live in a day and age when knowledge of human rights practices in other countries can travel very quickly, meaning that if a country wishes to adopt a new practice it is very easy for the Government/electorate to do so.

    ECHR is a classic of an organisation which has grown like topsy from its original purpose and now complicates matters with no accompanying benefit to the majorities of the electorates locked into its diktat.

  15. BOF
    November 22, 2023

    Yes, Martin Howe is right , we should leave the ECHR.

    We should also leave the WHO and the UN. Both have become corrupt and persue one world government.

  16. Dave Andrews
    November 22, 2023

    No need to withdraw from the Convention, just treat the ECHR judgements as advisory.
    If the ECHR wants an illegal immigrant to stay in this country, let it raise the funds to pay for their costs and be liable for any criminal behaviour they cause.
    Judges like the doctrine of vicarious liability, so let’s apply it to them.

  17. Rhoddas
    November 22, 2023

    How about a general notwithstanding bill to emphasise uk parliament is top UK legislative body?

    I am pretty sure that’s what the EU countries do as a matter of course…

    1. Denis Cooper
      November 23, 2023

      “Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.”

      1. Margaret
        November 23, 2023

        Plus 1 for authenticity.

  18. Matthu
    November 22, 2023

    I agree with Nartin Howe KC.

    However, focusing only on illegal migrantes is a huge distraction from the number of legal migrants being allowed to flood into the country on an annual basis in defiance of British voters.

    In 2022, 1.2 million migrants arrived on these shores (and 594k fled) without any noticeable increase in infrastructure.

    Many of these arrivals have strong cultural and religious affiliations that are very foreign to this land and make it very difficult to achieve any meaningful integration.

    Conservative government after Conservative government have encouraged this flood of new arrivals without any democratic mandate and while repeatedly lying to the electorate under the pretence that they were trying to achieve the exact opposite.

    Successive Conservative prime ministers are bringing about the cultural collapse of our society under the guise of being conservative.

    Don’t be distracted by illegal rubber dinghies that are but a very small part of the problem.

  19. Narrow Shoulders
    November 22, 2023

    This is a difficult debate as any rogue state wishing is treat its citizens poorly would state “sovereign parliament” as an reason for a dictator to not be part of this set up.

    The issue, as with many in our modern life, is that no one in these organisations takes a holistic view and considers the consequences of their decision on the remainder of the population of their attempts to be ever so nice people.

    Save us from the worthy. Withdraw.

  20. Iain gill
    November 22, 2023

    ECHR was written a long time ago, and like the right to bear arms in the US the world today is very different to the world the people who wrote it knew or could anticipate.
    It does not balance very well the rights of the individual versus the rights of the rest of the population they impact.
    I think we should leave ECHR and think that is consistent with the Brexit verdict.
    We should be completely self governing.
    We should do other obvious stuff like stopping non British citizens from voting in elections, completely stopping the route from work and student visas to indefinite leave to remain.
    We should stop offering immigration perks as part of so called trade deals.
    We need some “tough love” for the immigration abusers, get the military to stop them with force.
    There is no support for anything more than zero net immigration in the electorate, jfdi. The ruling class are wrong to allow more.

  21. Lifelogic
    November 22, 2023

    Sir Patrick Vallance says the “Eat Out to Help Out” scheme is “highly likely” to have increased Covid deaths in the UK. Well yes any relaxation of lockdowns will clearly advance some infections and deaths (but perhaps by just a few weeks you cannot lock down for ever).

    But this is not the point Vallance. For each such death brought forwards about 700 healthy people will have caught Covid and been given a free, earlier and rather better than vaccine Covid Protection. Thus bringing forwards herd immunity and overall saving many lives.

    The lockdowns did far more harm than good to health and to the economy this should have been very obvious at the time. The gov. “Experts” and politicians failed dreadfully.

    Perhaps the best lesson to be learned is that we need a red team of decent experts on so many issues to counter the government group think. Government were/are wrong on lockdowns, wrong on net zero, wrong on tax levels and the size of the state, wrong on the ERM/EURO, wrong on the QE currency debasement (inflation), wrong on excessive red tape, wrong on energy renewable subsidies, wrong on Libya, Blair’s wars, wrong on the minimum wage, wrong on restrictive employment laws and planning, wrong on the WHO treaty, lockdowns, the ECHR, the NHS disaster… indeed wrong on almost everything currently.

  22. formula57
    November 22, 2023

    Like any product ECHR has to do in fact what it proclaims on the packaging or else it risks rejection. That an intellectually defensible case can be made now for leaving suggests that product is in trouble.

    For the time being I would prefer your selected route of disapplication to see to it that parliament’s will can prevail but our supine foreign office ought to get busy lobbying to restore the ECHR to what it once was. Should restoration not prove possible, we should not delay our exit simply because the ECHR was once a worthy notion and echoes high ideals.

  23. Javelin
    November 22, 2023

    The world has pivoted from left-right wing to elitist-populist.

    In a democratic world populists would win every time.

    The elitists however hand power to supra-national and sub-national technocrats to maintain the undemocratic status quo.

    We are already in a tax- and technocratic dictatorship controlled by the ECHR, UN, WHO, BofE etc.

  24. Bloke
    November 22, 2023

    A ‘convention’ is a usual way of doing things. The UK Supreme Court was designed to be supreme. Allowing the ECHR to countermand the UK’s elected government’s laws is an unusually bad practice. The ECHR has become unfit for purpose. Signatory countries can note its point of view and adjust their own rules only for later cases if they regard its opinion as valid. Beyond that, the ECHR is a waste of time, money and space.

  25. Lifelogic
    November 22, 2023

    Surely, given how cheap modern electronic are, car etc. should have a system to detect sudden deceleration and crashes and set off alarms, bright flashing lights with a certain sequence and a transmitter to raise the alarm and to locate them. This would surely save many lives and injuries in crashes (some not found for many hours) or in multi-vehicle pile ups etc.

  26. Farmer John
    November 22, 2023

    The ECHR has no effect on my daily life. I rather think that, not for the first time, Mr Redwood is wanting us to look away from the real issues that face this country – low growth, high tax, inequality, all the result of 13 disastrous years of Conservative government.

    1. glen cullen
      November 22, 2023

      If its of little consequences ….revoke our membership

  27. David Andrews
    November 22, 2023

    I think he makes a good case.

  28. Rod Evans
    November 22, 2023

    There is no doubt, the ECHR has become a key part of ‘lawfare’ being used to prevent sovereign nations from exercising their innate sovereign rights.
    The groups of migrant activists now set up and their legal teams that have emerged during the past thirty years are using all and every instrument they can, to stop elected government. Their intention is to block government enacting or exercising existing domestic laws and rules that favour the existing residents which prevents ingress of unregulated migrants.
    While our elected MPs continue to allow themselves to be chained by legal challenges from doing anything, to actually stop illegal migration. We will forever have this ‘whack a mole’ game with lawyers constantly popping up citing ECHR.
    The need for the ECHR was clear after the horrors of the second world war and the fact the National Socialists in Germany had used the standing laws of that country to imperil legitimate citizens and non nationals, alike. The NAZI government revealed what unregulated socialism morphing into fascism could result in. Other more balanced democracies that had resisted the horrors of totalitarianism, were rightly anxious to avoid a repeat of the 1930s and 1940s, they has experienced in Europe. That convention (the ECHR) stating the rights of the individual was never intended or written to be used as a blocking instrument to prevent a safe haven nation stopping invasion sized forces, illegally landing daily on its shores.
    We do need to withdraw from the ECHR.
    Unfortunately, even if we withdraw from the ECHR the next instrument of lawfare that will be used by the ambulance chasing migrant lawyers/malicious activists will be the UN Global Compact on assisting migration, which Theresa May (the self declared woke PM) signed into law in December 2018.
    The threat to our once well regarded safe social living practices, are under threat from the ‘one world one size fits all’ left wing zealots. We may have won the war and thought we were setting up a legal safeguard for all, via the ECHR, unfortunately the forces constantly taking us down are determined. They will not allow us to win the peace the whole world seeks.
    We live in challenging times, literally.

  29. Denis Cooper
    November 22, 2023

    Please could you publish the link to his analysis.

  30. Lifelogic
    November 22, 2023

    Surely time to have crash and rapid deceleration detector in cars that set off transmitters and flashing light so crashes are detected and located quickly not days later. Could help with pile ups too. Could be extremely cheap with modern electronics.

    An excellent tweet by Clare Craig of the Hartgroup.Org on baby excess mortality this timing with mothers vaccinations in Scotland. If it was the vaccines 1 death per 690 doses and many had more than one dose. So are the Government investigating? Or trying to hide?

  31. Ian B
    November 22, 2023

    I can’t understand why Parliament and its MP’s are fighting this, to the World it is simple a Country is either a Democracy or it is not.
    In a Democracy laws, rules and regulation that relate to the workings inside the Country are defined, created amended and appealed by its Legislators (The MP’s we elect and pay to act on our behalf). If that isn’t permitted then the UK is NOT a democracy – it is just someone else puppet.
    The message the UK’s MP’s (our Legislators) that the people have empowered and paid are sending is they can’t make the laws, rules, and regulations that the Country has asked them too. From that you have to conclude those persons are not fit and proper people to be MP’s, so they should resign. For the most part that is their only job and duty.
    ECHR is not compatible with a Country being a Democracy, it is the complete opposite

    1. Ian B
      November 22, 2023

      A more subtle take on this situation, that some cant get their head around, is that the schemes the ECHR has come up with, first and foremost work on the premise that people arriving on the Planet must have all their liberties removed so that they can then be able to grant them – that’s bizarre.
      Democracies only remove rights through Laws, Rules and Regulations, if the People through their Parliamentary representatives require it. Even then through the same process these can be amended or repealed. The ECHR not being part of any accountability or having any responsibility does not permit interference from any democratic process.

  32. The Meissen Bison
    November 22, 2023

    You prune a rose but you eradicate Japanese knot weed.

  33. Berkshiire Alan
    November 22, 2023

    Any action we take as a Nation needs to happen Quickly, and needs to cover all illegal types of entry, not just those arriving in small boats, also important is the immediate removal of any illegals, do not even give them the opportunity to game the system.
    I see it was reported last week that we now have 25 known terrorists who have entered the UK using the small boats method, hardly a surprise is it, just add the cost of searching for them to the £ millions already being spent, and to the disruption and cost they may yet cause with any action they may try to take.

  34. Hope
    November 22, 2023

    We had many promises to leave ECHR and repeal Blaire’s Human Rights Act, nothing materialised. Even Trecherous May advocated it was only way to get rid of unwanted terrorists, she did….nothing.

    Guido pointed out remainer Cameron could not mention new trade deal he spoke about could only be possible by Brexit!

    The fault lies within JR’s party. We saw Tobias Elwood last week praise left wing socialism in his party as a vote winner. The exact opposite is true- 1979 Thatcher etc. The deluded fool who praised the Taliban! Elwood is a left winger in the wrong party.

    JR’s party have a large number of socialists who through snobbery joined the Tory party because they do not have the courage to be labelled socialists. Unfortunately JR’s side of the party has been steadily removed by central selection processes. May could not beat Corbyn! Her horrible persona has caused irreparable damage to the party but she and her like still remain. Centre right conservatism believing in our nation, values and culture would win every time. That does not exist in Tory govt.

  35. David
    November 22, 2023

    Where is Martim Howe’s new publication?

  36. Sea_Warrior
    November 22, 2023

    There’s a pressing need for the government to take a deep-dive into every one of the WEF’s policy-positions and establish the extent to which it has been suckered into doing what an anti-democratic body wants. But I doubt that it will. And yes, I also want out of the ECHR.

  37. George Sheard
    November 22, 2023

    Hi sir John
    We should leave the European courts we don’t need other countries to tell what we can do, that’s why we voted for Brexit.
    Italy are going to send migrants to other countries it is not against European law
    Why have we given France over 400 million pounds ?? To stop the illegal boats. They just passing their problems onto the UK
    They just leave migrants to fend for themselves where as put people out of jobs to house and feed them . We also send taxis and the RNLI to pick them up no wonder they keep coming we are encouraging them
    Why are we not arresting the pilots driving
    the boats ??
    John has the increased spread of measles been bought into the country by the migrants? Along with TB
    Thank you

  38. Geoffrey Berg
    November 22, 2023

    The ECHR is elected by nobody and so is democratically accountable to nobody. So it has no legitimacy to override or even amend any decisions made by our democracy even though it thinks it has such rights, Leaving it is therefore on principle the only logical and democratic thing to do.

  39. Norman Graham
    November 22, 2023

    I agree with Martin Howe. There are ample Citizens rights in Common and Statute Law, even if we repealed the Human Rights Act.

  40. Bryan Harris
    November 22, 2023

    Let’s ask the questions that should settle this matter:

    Just what has the ECHR done for the UK that our own courts couldn’t do?

    Do we really need a high, external to our constitution, telling us what to do?

    I can think of no reasons why we should want to remain in the foreign ECHR – it certainly send the wrong messages, especially where the EU is concerned – they think we will be tied to the apron strings because we dither about leaving.

    Leaving the ECHR is one more step to getting BREXIT done – let’s get over the idea that we are not fit to govern ourselves!

  41. Iain Moore
    November 22, 2023

    “Parliament want should be good law”

    Yet our hand wringing, pearl clutching Parliamentarians have delivered us a sick circus . This is what it cost us to deport one, ONE, Somali rapist ……

    “24 separate tribunal or court hearings, in front of 20 or more judges, as he made a series of false claims. But today this newspaper can reveal that the 34-year-old was finally expelled in August, after costing taxpayers up to £1 million in legal, prison and deportation costs, including the generous ‘care package’ to greet his arrival in Somalia.”

    The 650 MPs should be ashamed of the human rights lawfare they have created, with the shame of this case enough to sweep away all the garbage that stops us acting as a sovereign state , but no it is nigh on impossible to get them to act in our interests , for all we get are may be, perhaps, and prevarication , action is an anathema to them, they probably think acting in our national interests is racist .

  42. glen cullen
    November 22, 2023

    Technically, legally, academically and administratively the government has always had the power to withdrawal from the ECHRs ….its just never had the bottle to go against the media and the minority left wing lobby groups
    I know it’s a new concept but how about doing what the majority wants ? Leace the ECHRs

  43. Brian Tomkinson
    November 22, 2023

    If your solution was feasible why has it not been done? There has been plenty of time. All we get is meaningless talk and no action. It is rumoured that ONS legal net migration statistics, due out on Thursday, will show a further massive increase to 700,000 for the year to June 2023. Clearly this government and this parliament have no intention of controlling immigration or our borders.

  44. Michelle
    November 22, 2023

    The Conservatives have just appointed a common sense Czar, so here is her first major case.
    It is common sense that we cannot take in the numbers we have been taking in legally, let alone illegally.
    ECHR and any other treaty has no right to remove our right to safety, and our right to expect continuation of our culture, laws and customs, which is the only sure fire way for a settled harmonious land.
    A never ending parade of people all expecting to bring their customs, culture etc that we are then expected to mould ourselves to will only bring the opposite.
    That makes no sense at all. Neither does it make sense that so many can remain when it’s clear it’s safe for them to return. They go home for visits, so they should go home full stop.
    Where does one persons right end and where does another persons right begin?
    Those in power have a duty legally and morally to those here first and foremost.
    Their personal preferences and desire to be all things to all men should not be allowed to interfere with our right to expect them to do their duty to us first.
    More effort and resources should be spent helping people stay within their own regions when trouble arises, and not throw the doors open here immediately.
    I’m noting countries surrounding Palestine are ensuring they do not have a surge of Palestinian refugees, so as to unsettle their population. I hear no voices of condemnation, no bolt of lightening has struck. Likewise Pakistan gave all the ‘undocumented’ Afghans residing there a notice to leave. Again I hear no screaming from the usual crowd here or on an International level.
    I do expect any day now though to hear how it is ‘our moral duty’ to bring in thousands of Palestinians, and not least from those already here.
    Enough is enough.

  45. Original Richard
    November 22, 2023

    Does the appointment of Ali Bahreini, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Permanent Representative to the United Nations, to chair the 2023 United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Social Forum mean that our Supreme Court judges will define Iran as a safe country for the return of its citizens arriving here illegally?

  46. Nigl
    November 22, 2023

    Martin Howe who exposed the untruths in Theresa Mays sham of a Brexit agreement incidentally agreed by the then nodding donkeys. Michael Gove an especially willing lapdog, is well known for his views on the EU, indeed I think he helped the ERG so no surprise he has come up with this.

    On the basis that most of Parliament were happy to give away major power to the EU, HMG is looking to sign up to a world corporation tax agreement and the WHO on pandemics there is zero chance of withdrawal.

    What we will get is the same endless BS about changing it from within as Cameron continuously ‘lied’ to us about the EU even to the extent of mythical concessions from Mrs Merkel.

    Cameron when moving a second reading of a bill in the Lords yesterday which was a massive post Brexit win couldn’t even have the decency to mention it.

    Of course we should leave and I suspect there would be majority for it if we put our own laws in its place but our Supreme Court would merely push back as the European judges do.

  47. THUTCH
    November 22, 2023

    I think he is right. There’s a fantastic piece by Lord Sumption – arch remainer but god lockdown sceptic – also arguing for a withdrawal from the ECHR. Here’s a snippet;

    ‘One point should be made at the outset and never overlooked: we do not need the European Convention on Human Rights in order to protect human rights. Many of the rights which the convention proclaims were part of British law long before the convention was conceived. There is nothing in it that we cannot enact by ordinary domestic legislation. We can have whatever rights we want if there is a sufficient democratic mandate for them. The real purpose of the convention is to make us accept rights which we may not want and for which there maybe no democratic mandate’.

    Just google Lord Sumption ECHR and you’ll find the full article.

  48. Denis Cooper
    November 22, 2023

    I’ve googled but I don’t find anything later than this Telegraph article from earlier in the month:

    “Europe is turning against Strasbourg’s imperial court”

    “Britain isn’t alone in finding the ECHR deficient. However, reforming it is probably not going to work”

    “In order to amend the text of the ECHR, the agreement of all 46 of its member states would be needed. David Cameron tried this in 2012 when the UK held the Presidency of the Council of Europe. Because of the need for unanimity, he achieved little and his changes took until 2021 to come into force.

    Reforming the ECHR, therefore, is not a practical way forward to solving the problems of boats arriving across the English Channel. Even if the UK could find a few allies willing to make significant changes to the ECHR, there would be opposition from other countries who take a different view. Some have vehemently criticised the UK’s Rwanda plan.”

    However my view that we do not have to denounce the whole Convention, we only have to declare that we no longer consent to be bound by judgments emerging from the Strasbourg court.

  49. Christine
    November 22, 2023

    With the EU treaty changes coming in to make the EU a superstate and remove the voting rights of MEPs the conditions will be in place to allow tyrannies to thrive once again. Why Rejoiners want to become a part of this baffles me. I can only think they haven’t kept up with the changes being made to the EU treaties or maybe their hatred of Brexit and democracy blinds them to what is happening.

    My thoughts on the ECHR are that we should leave it. I also think we should have a new law that prohibits any UK Government from signing away any decisions to a Global non-elected body. I’m appalled that Sunak is signing us up to the WHO changes without even asking voters. What’s the point of learning lessons from the sham Covid inquiry when we are giving our health autonomy over to a very suspect organisation which is funded by dubious billionaires and pharma companies?

    People around the World are waking up to what’s going on with their politicians. Just look at recent events in Spain and Argentina. What a pity the British voters are so complacent and continue to believe what the media tells them without doing their own research. “there are none so blind as those who will not see“

  50. Linda Brown
    November 22, 2023

    We should withdraw immediately not over a lengthy discussion. We should be a sovereign country now as we left the EU in 2016, or did we? I am getting fed up with all these intrusions into our freedom and want someone to take action. As to having elections. These are pretty useless if we then get unelected PMs and Foreign Secretaries foisted on us. If we, the natives, cannot say who we want as PM and the paid up members of the Tory Party cannot either, what is the point? It seems we are running head long into the global situation that is planned for us. Someone needs to start fighting for the ordinary citizens of this country. Do we, the people on the streets, have to do that again?

    One thing I will say to Sunak and Co., is that if they do not realise that the people voted for Boris with all his faults, they pretty soon will do when they lose most of the seats he gained for them.

  51. Denis Cooper
    November 22, 2023

    By coincidence I’m reading a book about Henry VIII and I’ve just reached the Act in Restraint of Appeals:

    “It was passed in the first week of April 1533. It is considered by many historians to be the key legal foundation of the English Reformation.”

    “The Act … forbade all appeals to the Pope in Rome on religious or other matters, making the King the final legal authority in all such matters in England, Wales, and other English possessions.”

    ” … by his royal assent, and by the assent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by authority of the same, enact, establish, and ordain, that all causes testamentary, causes of matrimony and divorces … shall be from henceforth heard, examined, discussed, clearly, finally, and definitively adjudged and determined within the king’s jurisdiction and authority and not elsewhere … “

    1. glen cullen
      November 22, 2023


  52. Original Richard
    November 22, 2023

    Off topic if I may please :

    Recently 9 members of the climate activist organisation, XR, were cleared by a jury of causing £500,000 worth of damage to HSBC’s London headquarters after they argued they had a “lawful excuse” for their action. The defendants said that they targeted HSBC because it was one of Europe’s largest investors in fossil fuels, thereby contributing to climate change.

    I am not a lawyer, so I am asking, where does this judgement take us?

    Is now any property or person unprotected from criminal action by climate activists? Would I be fair game for driving a petrol or diesel vehicle?

    Will this ruling extend to all groups and orgabisations who believe that either the planet or the human race will not survive without everyone and every organisation accepting their creed and hence are allowed to take whatever action they deem necessary arguing that they have a “lawful excuse”?

    1. glen cullen
      November 22, 2023

      So anyone with a home gas boiler or who drives a petrol car is considered fair game ….thanks a lot to this tory government who declared the climate change science settled ….the idiots

    2. Mickey Taking
      November 23, 2023

      I’m gobsmacked that a jury could arrive at that verdict. ‘Reasonable men!’ WHAT!

  53. The PrangWizard
    November 22, 2023

    We must not propose compromise and appeasement on critical issues such as this. Those who are our opponents will see correctly it coming from the weak and naive and know later they can get their full position back. Those in the country who want to undermine us will not be deterred as they will see they are dealing with the weak and academics only.

  54. Elli
    November 22, 2023

    From a practical point of view it’s clear that legislation repealing the particular bits of the ECHR is far easier and, if correctly scoping the changes, achieve the objective of slowing the avalanche of illegal immigrants.
    Regarding the reduction of sovereignty by signing international agreements, this is a mute point, the sovereign parliament is source of the authority signing the agreement.

    1. Elli
      November 22, 2023

      Oops: mute -> moot

  55. Denis Cooper
    November 22, 2023

    Off topic, somebody with weight should be taking this bloke to task:

    “Brexit has ‘chilled’ business investment, says Bank of England deputy governor”

    Because that isn’t what the chart in the article itself says, and earlier in the day a chart of business investment going back to 1970 had been flashed up on TV and it has been downhill all the way, this is not something that started around 2016.

    I find that chart here:

    “Figure 1 – The UK has always underinvested but today is falling further behind”

    and it is simply not true that “You can see a break in the trend for UK business investment in 2016″.

  56. Kenneth
    November 22, 2023

    We are not a democracy if we are subject to external rules.

    The only exception should be where there is a discreet agreement (e.g. a treaty) and the rules of the agreement are static with interpretations and amendments exercised only by individual countries.

    What is unacceptable is to have rules that are extended, amended and interpreted by an external body (e.g. ECHR and EU).

    1. Kenneth
      November 22, 2023

      i.e. there should be no such thing as “international law”

      1. glen cullen
        November 22, 2023


    2. Mitchel
      November 23, 2023

      You are not a democracy if you are bust and depend on the “kindness of strangers.”

      You are debt slaves.Now get on with your work,serfs!

  57. Bert+Young
    November 22, 2023

    Being part of an international agreement is a significant recognition of an acceptable condition , however securing the decision is dependent on the will of the people ; this is where the gap lies at the moment . The cost and knock on effect of illegal immigration is something our economy cannot withstand and the majority of citizens do not support it . There is no evidence that the UK and other countries obtain any noticeable benefit from accepting this group of people ; selective scrutiny does not exist and we must be able to decide what we want for ourselves . The ECHR is a body that was created long before this problem existed , it now must re-co-ordinate its approach in order to maintain any position of effective judgement .

  58. hefner
    November 22, 2023

    Martin Howe KC, expert in intellectual property and EU law, Chairman of Lawyers for Britain, who between 2012 and 2015 had drafted seven drafts for a plan to scrap the Human Rights Act.
    Persistent, isn’t he? As Ringo would have said ‘I just need a little help from my friends’

  59. RDM
    November 22, 2023

    For me, it is clear! Leave ECHR!

    I trust Parliament, also long as MP’s are not given too much Power over individuals!

    We might need to use Referenda more often; if, for no other reason, then to ensure, ultimately, that it’s down to the British People! As in Rights of the Individual Vs State (more of the Switzerland example)! This could be used to re-enforce Parliament, over the Jurdicisary, if necessary (Stopping the boats)!

    Alway; Getting it pass those in the HoL, will be a sight to behold!

    It will mean that Devolution; the relationship of it’s People will change with Parliament! As in Wales; The Welsh People should want to move back to equality with the English, on a per person basis (our individual vote has the same expression)! Besides; the narrow minded nationalist are intent on driving a wedge between us (meaning; I’m British), they want to fedurate the HoL, and then break us up and move back into the EU!

    NI will need to get rid of the WA, and rejoin it’s Country!

    Unionists; We need to do something? Unaligning from the EU Customs Union, ….

    Politically, it will give Sunak, DC, JH some credability! A decisive move away from the old European Institutions, that are not fit for purpose! But, I think DC, Sunak, Hunt are all globalists, not Unionst enough to accept the move! Besides, I think you’ll find they have far too many Strings attached, to be allowed to bring us out of it!

    But, if we did, then, hopefully, we’ll have a move away from Net Zero rubbish, some Supplyside Reform, deregulation, and a decisive move back to a Free Market (Free, Flexible Price Mechanism, Well regulated markets, competition authority working in the British Interest).

    We can all but dream?



  60. XY
    November 22, 2023

    It should be borne in mind that the Supreme Court judgment clearly stated that the ECHR is not the only problem – there are “numerous” treaties and aspects of existing UK law that would be problematic in relocating claimants to countries that may send them elsewhere, including their home country.

    Therefore the “notwthstanding” clauses would be a minimum need, even if we exit the ECHR.

    The ECHR has indeed become “not fit for purpose” but that’s not the point.

    However, our host rightly points out that Parliament voted not to give prisoners voting rights – but I believe the extrapolation of that case to this may be inappropriate. The reason is that if it requires parliamentary approval at every step then it will never happen *in this case*…

    That’s because there are far too many who are in favour of immigration, on all sides of the current make-up of parliament. And it provides a mechanism for unscrupulous actors to scupper the will of the people being enacted (and let’s make no bones about the modern parliament – let’s just say that it ain’t what it used to be, as we saw with the shenanigans around Brexit).

    Overall – the SC judgement means that the notwithstanding clauses are needed as a minimum and exiting the ECHR is perhaps also needed to avoid constant parliamentary infighting and shenanigans. Let’s make the law clear. There may be further revisions to legislation required as well – we need to understand exactly which pieces of legislation and which treaties the SC had in mind and see if notwithstanding clauses would cover all the bases.

    Finally, if Braverman is correct then Sunak knew this all along. Draw your own conclusions. Personally, I tend to believe Braverman.

  61. Derek
    November 22, 2023

    To the liberal left remainers, EU Law specialist and avid Brexiteer, Mr Martin Howe KC, MUST be ignored. The truth and the facts become irrelevant when contrary to their own views.
    So why does the Government not now adopt his legal discovery and raise a new Bill to protect the citizens of this country from the undesirables coming here, courtesy of some foreign magistrates and who have absolutely no affiliation with us?

  62. Ian B
    November 22, 2023

    Martin Howe KC is 100% correct. Why should the people be asked to elect, empower and pay for its MP’s when they refuse their job as the UK’s legislators.
    There is not one single bit of the ECHR that the UK Parliament could not create if the people through their representatives saw the need or demand for it. Then as a Democratic Parliament they have also been empowered to amend or repeal such laws as circumstances require – it’s called Democracy.
    The UK doesn’t have a formal constitution or bill of rights as they do elsewhere, while some are not happy about that, it does allow for the UK structure to evolve through the democratic process to create the needs of today. Things the electorate are not happy with then get changed through a democratic election, to call your selves a Democracy it should be the same for all Laws, Regulation and Rules. We are not paying and empowering MP’s to preen their vanity, they are there to Serve the needs of the People of this Country, as their Legislators. If MP’s cant cope with that they are in the wrong place and should resign.

  63. Mike Wilson
    November 22, 2023

    But ‘other countries’ may well ignore the ECHR – as, apparently, we have with prisoners’ votes. We have a Supreme Court to adjudicate the laws Parliament passes but, unlike other countries, this country (or, rather, this Tory government) chooses to comply with the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Rwanda plan. Why? What would happen if they ignored the ruling? As Sunak himself said, you’d only have to send a couple of planes to Rwanda and the boats will stop.

  64. Michael Saxton
    November 22, 2023

    I agree with Martin Howe, it is high time the ECHR was updated as it’s unacceptable for an unelected body to hold sway over our Parliament. We are an independent sovereign nation and cannot be held to ransom by any external institution. What especially concerns me is the considerable number of MP’s, including the Prime Minister, who want to continue with the ECHR, plus of course the majority of the House of Lords. Why are Conservative MP’s so hesitant?

  65. Ian B
    November 22, 2023

    “UK was one of the original drafters and instigators of the Convention on human rights” No Sir John, I believe you have that wrong. The UK People never had a say, I doubt that they even knew there were unelected unrepresented bureaucrats out there preening their egos and self-extreme in their name.
    There is the root of most the Worlds evils, self-appointed individuals, so-called experts deciding what and how humans should act in all circumstance. In other words, the unelected unrepresented got to define human nature for infinity. That is 100% corruption.
    Todays needs, may not solve tomorrow’s problems. Democracy is far from being perfect, but when set against all the alternatives it is the safest route. Parliament in embracing the ECHR and similar are the ones that are confining their purpose therefore Democracy to the trash can.

  66. It doesn't add up...
    November 22, 2023

    I see that South Africa is to withdraw from the UN Convention on Refugees. It’s exactly the right tactic to secure long overdue reform, and one we should apply to the UNCR and the ECHR too, and we should probably include several other UN bodies in the list, such as WHO and the IPCC.

    The overreach of these supranational organisations needs to be tamed, and their objectives reset in line with a more sensible basis. We should not be seeking to end assistance to genuine refugees in war or natural disaster zones, or the polio eradication programme that was halted by covid, or even to proper studies on climates. However we should maintain our rights to self determination which are at the heart of the UN charter.

  67. Keith from Leeds
    November 22, 2023

    Again and again, this problem is debated, yet nothing happens. Do our MPs care about the UK and its future? A young immigrant today needs accommodation. That same young immigrant gets married and has 4 to 6 children who are all UK citizens. So 20 to 30 years into the future we now need houses for the children who have grown up and married. We are struggling now with Housing, Public Services, the NHS, GPs, and Schools, so how will we cope with a population of 100 million in the future, many of whom will not share our culture and values? That is clearly demonstrated by the marchers supporting Hamas, & already Labour MPs are voting for a minority of their constituents. How much worse does it have to get before MPs start thinking long-term and doing what voters want, not what gets them through today’s crisis? Unpalatable but true!

    1. hefner
      November 22, 2023

      Another idiotic comment. One doesn’t get British citizenship simply because one was born in Britain.
      It is incredible how many stupidities people who do not check anything before writing can produce.
      Not surprising that a country so full of half-wits can be declining so quickly.

      1. Mickey Taking
        November 23, 2023

        The half-wits are encouraged to migrate to Westminster.

      2. Hope
        November 23, 2023

        Very unkind and thoughtless remark by someone so intelligent. So what is your solution to providing requisite infrastructure for the mass immigration policy actively promoted by both Labour and Tory parties? I read that to be the sentiment of the above comment. Perhaps you might not have to wait for housing, NHS treatment, to see a doctor or get a school place, but many others do.

        1. glen cullen
          November 23, 2023


      3. a-tracy
        November 23, 2023

        Rather rude Hefner. It depends if the young immigrant marries a British Citizen, and then the children get British Citizenship.

        If the British parent has become a citizen through the process of naturalisation (i.e. they originally came to the UK on a visa, and then took steps to apply for citizenship using this route) they must register their child for citizenship.

        The same goes for parents who give birth to children in the UK while they hold a form of ‘settled status’, such as Indefinite Leave to Remain or EEA Permanent Residence.

        They can also become eligible for British registration if they live in the UK for at least 10 years. In this case, they can gain citizenship through the ’10-year continuous residence route’.

  68. NickC
    November 22, 2023

    It would be perfectly possible for the government to control overall immigration, irrespective of the ECHR, by reducing the numbers arriving here legally. The two obvious options are to put a temporary moratorium on all legal immigration; or to operate a “net zero immigration” policy where numbers admitted (both legal and illegal migrants) equal the numbers leaving.

    It appears that both the government and the opposition are using the issue of illegal migration to cover up the much larger number of legal migrants. England is a small overpopulated country whose inhabitants want the half million or so net migration every year to stop. The government has the legal power to immediately reduce immigration. Why won’t it use it?

  69. KB
    November 22, 2023

    I think limited exemption is the way forward. There is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater to solve what is a very specific problem, i.e. the boat people.

  70. mancunius
    November 22, 2023

    “an international external body that can effectively strike down domestic law” – such as the Supreme Court of the UK, which recently dismissed the government’s Appeal on the basis of a speculative view by an unnamed UNWRA representative, concerning the possible future good faith of the state of Rwanda, with reference to refoulement and even – less well publicised – that Rwanda *might* in the undefined future (again in the opinion of the anonymous UNWRA representative) interfere with the rulings of its own judiciary.
    How Lord Reed and his colleagues managed to keep a straight face when making that ruling, is beyond me.
    Let us please abolish the Supreme Court, return final judgments to the Law Lords, and let all judges be forced to take an Oath of Loyalty to the rulings of Parliament.

  71. a-tracy
    November 22, 2023

    ‘Under a Conservative government, the leader of the opposition (David Cameron) promised, “net migration” would be reduced to the “tens of thousands”.

    How could he make that pledge if he knew the ECHR wouldn’t allow for return? On top of the EU immigration had a green light for all EU Citizens including those from other Countries they had given settled status, thanks to Labour not putting any restrictions in.

  72. glen cullen
    November 22, 2023

    This time next year ‘SirJ’ we’ll all be millionaires

  73. rose
    November 22, 2023

    Why didn’t he considerably raise the level at which small business must pay VAT? Is the failure to change anything on VAT because we have to ask the EU’s permission?

    1. Mickey Taking
      November 23, 2023

      keeping aligned so that when they have us re-join as Member Class 2, little to change.

  74. Ralph Corderoy
    November 22, 2023

    Leave the ECHR. Join the many other countries outside of it. Let our politicians decide, not a supranational political body. Being part of the ECHR gives us no influence over it unlike, say, the WTO so that isn’t a reason to remain.

    1. hefner
      November 22, 2023

      RC, The many countries, ahem, Russia and Belarus (and if one wants to be really complete Greece between 1967 and 1974 after the military coup had suppressed democracy in that country).
      I keep on ´admiring’ the ignorance of history among some contributors on this blog. Absolutely ‘wonderful’.

      1. Hope
        November 23, 2023

        Being in the ECHR is not sacrosanct to have a civil society or treat its citizens properly. How about US? How about our common law, cannon law, Magna Carta? Did they play any role before the wretched ECHR came along and Blaire enacted it in his Human Rights Act? Please tell us oh so clever one.
        You are clearly an intelligent person who could persuade others with far better comments.

      2. Ralph Corderoy
        November 24, 2023

        Hi hefner, You comment is unclear. I said ‘Join the many other countries outside of it’. You replied ‘The many countries, ahem, Russia and Belarus’. You’re implying there are few countries outside of it and they’re crackpots. Yet there are 190-odd countries and the majority are not in the ECHR. Of those, many have perfectly fine human rights including the USA, Canada, and Australia from this country’s pre-ECHR influence.

        But the key point is the voter here should influence our rights. They should not be handed down from a supranational unelected body.

  75. R Goodacre
    November 22, 2023

    Jonathan Sumption, the retired Supreme Court judge, recently made a well-reasoned case for leaving the ECHR in a Spectator article

  76. Barry
    November 22, 2023

    Maybe limit individual vs. the government-type cases to actions in UK courts under the Human Rights Act 1998? However, I am most unhappy that the UK government has sanctioned a UK citizen living abroad whose only ‘crime’ was exercising his right to free speech. The government took a dislike to him and that was that. Peter Hitchens covered the case.

    I also oppose the almost total withdrawal of civil legal aid. It’s unjust and in one custody case I know it tripled court costs because the aggrieved party had to represent himself, taking far longer than lawyers. Read various books by ‘the Secret Barrister’ and see how even the criminal law now works, where legal aid was ‘only’ partly withdrawn.

    How do we square lack of access to ‘justice’ with tax revenue allegedly as high as 60-70 years ago? I cannot. If we corrected the above, as a quid pro quo I would be happy to end the role of the ECHR that some have objected to.

  77. David Bunney
    November 22, 2023

    John, there are a lot of issues that Tony Blairs government and subsequent Conservative ‘Blairite’ governments have sought unconstitutional reforms of this country which need resetting. We need a reformation of our constitution to pre-Blair. We don’t need a supreme court, we should not ever be subject to rulings from courts outside this country and parliament should be the place were all powers converge. The nonsense that the courts can overrule the government needs to be removed constitutionally. What the PM and government decides should be final (until the next election) and if there is anyone to hold the government to account or call for a judicious enquiry it should be parliament not unelected wigs. As for that matter we have far too many powerful civil servants and NGOs/Quangos which have the power to undermine, frustrait or block ministers decisions and plans. That needs a radical reform too. Take all powers away from all Quangos including the Bank of England. Interest Rates should be set by the chancellor; industry policies and energy policies should be set by parliament and not some Climate Change Committee; Rural England should not be deciding rural land use policies. For that matter we should not have GB Quangos themselves subservient to the WHO (that corrupt and evil UN organisation body agency) advising what our health policies are and when we are in an emergency. Remove all of the power structures that they have completely. I want no one but accountable ministers taking decisions in this country.

    As for the underlying question about the issues blocking a sensible pushback/send-back policy on these zodiac invaders from France. Get out of the EHCR and don’t bother with expensive flights to Rwanda, send them back to France. Similarly for legal immigration set the bar really high. We should not be providing cheap labour to companies and overwhelming housing, roads and health infrastructure here whilst depressing the jobs and salaries of British born people. That is an evil policy as well. We want immigration under control with few visas issued. Less pressure on housing, rural land, schools and GPs and then better prospects for British people.

  78. Lynn Atkinson
    November 22, 2023

    Foundation stone stuff. Martin Howe has to tell even JR what the basics are. What a shame!

    Hunts statement is really pathetic. They know they will lose the election so trying to sort out the ‘contingent corruption’ I.e kow towing to Corporations which have ‘salaries’ for unseated MPs. Nothing for anyone else. Very generous rise in minimum wages paid by someone else. Calculated a reduction including what his foregone increase would have been! 😂 a con man.

    These are really stupid people in Downing Street. Cornered like rats and they just don’t know what to do. Pathetic. I will now not only not vote Tory but I will vote for whosoever will unseat our brain-dead incumbent.

    1. Mickey Taking
      November 23, 2023

      Lynn – millions decided quite some time ago that they will not vote or will not vote Tory.
      This Hunt / Sunak deception is what it is – more tax no growth no hope.

    2. Hope
      November 23, 2023

      Plus many. A remainiac cabal clueless which way to turn. All of them comp,etely untrustworthy, fail to take responsibility for their own actions in causing a mess from Hunt as Health Secretary and all the failings from the pandemic to Sunak not having the sense or guts to hold firm on economic beliefs when chancellor to either Johnson or Bailey or any of the quangos like OBR!! They keep going along with socialism and the likes of Plebgate May and Ellwood rejoicing the extreme left wing part of the uni party back in Charge!

  79. paul cuthbertson
    November 22, 2023

    Parliamentary Democracy, do nt make me laugh. We have 650 puppet stooges of which 98% do not give shit about the people. How many actually attend the HoC? They vote to support what is good for them. Career politicians one and all .

  80. Hugh+C
    November 22, 2023

    The UK does not need a higher authority on Human Rights than our own parliament . Martin Howe is right and while we are about it what about full disclosure, debate and a referendum on what the WHO are trying to impose on our democracy?

  81. paul cuthbertson
    November 22, 2023

    Withdrawing from the ECHR- The people have been saying this for years.

    1. glen cullen
      November 22, 2023

      ….and the majority of voters views have been ignored for years

  82. StephenS
    November 22, 2023

    I just don’t see why the government is so shy of dis-applying any international treaty that seeks to impinge on a very specific policy that is safeguarding our borders and which will save the lives of the exploited desperate people making the crossings. An Act of Parliament with a specific disapplication will not lead us to exit the convention and should be done. No need for anything more extreme.

  83. Walt
    November 22, 2023

    Real “take back control” means that law in England is that enacted by the Monarch in Parliament and that is not subject to any other jurisdiction. Probably, for most practical purposes, we could achieve a broadly similar effect without leaving the ECHR, etc., by including enabling clauses to that effect in our bills and acts or by passing a new law that makes it clear and applicable to all legislation in this country.
    Whilst at it, please could we return to the situation of c. 50-60 years ago, to when regulations and decisions were properly debated in Parliament and not passed off to unelected Quangos. The latter have done what the ECHR has done, i.e., extend the remit originally given and thereby extend their powers beyond those envisaged at outset. It appears that the Strasbourg Court has extended the ECHR into a ‘Living Instrument’ and governments have meekly gone along with that when it would have been better to have told them then that they do not have that right and should stick to their knitting.
    Also, I preferred our Supreme Court to be the House of Lords, not a separate body with arguably greater authority than our own Law Lords in Parliament. What do you think Lord Denning would make of the present arrangements and Parliaments inability to pass a law on the decision of a separate supreme court?

  84. John O'Leary
    November 22, 2023

    I think all three of the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, the ECHR and the UK Supreme Court need to go, at least while the last is stuffed full of Blairite globalist judges.

  85. Jolyon Culbertson
    November 22, 2023

    Recent history suggests that the ECHR has no intention of restricting itself to the scope defined in the original treaty. The ‘right to vote’ for prisoners was a relatively minor victory at restricting it. The legal profession, including the now Leader of the Labour party in his previous work as a QC, know that the ECHR has no intention of limiting its scope, and it would likely take another treaty to change it which would take years , so its a good source of business with little comeback on them. My belief is that we need to leave the ECHR to make it plain beyond any doubt that it has no say. We might then pass our own Human Rights Act justiciable only in UK. Great care needs to be taken to keep the new law very tightly drafted to ensure wily lawyers and indeed judges have little or no wriggle room. It should probably make it plain what is not covered by the law for the same reason.
    Next, a clear law setting out what Parliament approves as the correct way to treat illegal and legal immigrants and those claiming asylum. This law should give the Minister power via Statutory instrument to adjust it for the purpose only of ensuring effective management of legal and illegal immigration and processing of asylum seekers. The law should require the public disclosure of all immigration visa numbers divided into main categories. Also the number and type of asylum applications , the numbers of asylum seekers granted permission to stay and the place of origin. Lastly it should make public details of all types of applications rejected and the numbers returned and to where.

  86. Peter D Gardner
    November 22, 2023

    The tight to life and liberty under art 5 of the ECHR is limited .
    1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and
    in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law……
    f. the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view
    to deportation or extradition.

    Why does the UK not use this in conjunction with UNCLOS and the limitations provided in art31 of the UN Convention on Refugees to turn the boats back in the Channel or to arrest and deport all those on board?
    In unsafe conditions why aren’t the drivers of the boats charged with endangering human life at sea under the Offences against the Persons Act 1871? People smuggling is hard to prove. Endangering life is easy to prove.
    I would think also that the right to life and liberty of Art 5 of the ECHR can be guaranteed only if a country can secure its borders. Surely that is the essence of the purpose of the ECHR? Otherwise a country is widen open to invasion and access by people intending harm to a citizen, or to other national entities.
    France is a safe country. While there has been a single case of a stopover en route to UK being ruled ‘direct travel’ under the UN Convention, that cannot be held to apply to people staying in France for months.

  87. Anthony
    November 22, 2023

    In principle I think it is better to remain in the ECHR and be willing to ignore rulings where sensible. But if governments are not willing to do that, it is hard to see how they muster the bravery to leave the ECHR either.

    It has occurred to me that one useful thing we could try is a reset. Repudiate the ECHR as it stands with its court and jurisprudence etc, then sign a new agreement “ECHR II” with exactly the same text as the original but, because it is new, doesn’t have the living instrument doctrine and all the rest. We’d be the only signatories to start with, but I expect it would be very popular.

    Under this arrangement, no one could complain we weren’t adhering to a human rights regime of the type we signed up to originally, but we wouldn’t have the current intrusive court.

  88. glen cullen
    November 22, 2023

    ”The debate in France on media cover up of migrant crime has reignited. A mass-stabbing took place during a village festival in Crépol on Saturday. A group of 10 radicals stabbed 16-y-old Thomas to death & wounded 17 of his friends, 2 of them are in serious conditions” Visegrád24 NewsGroup

  89. Lindsay+McDougall
    November 23, 2023

    There is a risk, however small, of Rwanda returning refugees to their country of origin. That’s fact and signing a Treaty with Rwanda won’t alter that. A better approach would be to have a British Bill of Human Rights. It should contain two components (1) That the rights of foreigners should be balanced against the interests of the British people, with the UK Government as the arbiter (2) A section defining the rights of taxpayers – in case politicians haven’t noticed, taxpayers are human beings. Once such a Bill became an Act, British courts would adjudicate.

  90. Mark
    November 23, 2023

    The Dutch election results suggest that concern about this was a major issue for voters there. Seeking to reform the ECHR and UNCR seems to have a degree of international support. We should be pursuing this through diplomatic channels, seeking to build a new consensus, which is after all what we did originally until our handiwork got hijacked by amendments.

  91. David Paine
    November 23, 2023

    The ECHR may or may not have a place in a federal Europe but that is no longer of value or interest to the UK now we are out of the EU.
    Indeed, the ECHR seems to have been weaponised against the UK by hostile players keen to undermine our society and rob the UK of its advantages.
    We need to leave the ECHR now and rely on our sovereign democracy to protect the rights of law abiding citizens and lawful visitors.

  92. John de los Angeles
    November 24, 2023

    I agree with Martin Howe KC.

  93. Ian Stafford
    November 24, 2023

    3 Interpretation of legislation.

    (1)So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.

    The Human rights Act contains a provision requiring courts to have regard to the judgments of the ECrHR. This has the effect of permitting illegals in particular to plead that their human rights as defined in the HRA and the eCHR should trump government decisions on their deportation. At least as an immediate step, a repeal of this provision would go some way to solving the current problem

Comments are closed.