Conservatives to push forward on manifesto and scrap Human Rights Act

[The Andy Naylor Fan Club]

David Cameron is drawing up plans to bring forward an in/out referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union by a year to 2016 in order to avoid a politically dangerous clash with the French and German elections in 2017.

As the prime minister declared that he had a mandate from the electorate to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership, government sources said Downing Street was keen to move quickly on the timing of the referendum.

If peers break with the Salisbury convention, which says that the upper house should not delay measures in the winning party’s election manifesto, then the government would have to force the bill through using the Parliament Act. This would take place a year after the bill’s second reading in the Commons which means the prime minister could override the Lords in June 2016. This means the referendum could be held in July or after the summer break in September 2016.

Indeed. But can we get rid of the Scots?

 

[TomandJerry]

Indeed. But can we get rid of the Scots?

Sure, why not?

 

[glasfryn]

David Cameron is drawing up plans to bring forward an in/out referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union by a year to 2016 in order to avoid a politically dangerous clash with the French and German elections in 2017.

As the prime minister declared that he had a mandate from the electorate to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership, government sources said Downing Street was keen to move quickly on the timing of the referendum.

If peers break with the Salisbury convention, which says that the upper house should not delay measures in the winning party’s election manifesto, then the government would have to force the bill through using the Parliament Act. This would take place a year after the bill’s second reading in the Commons which means the prime minister could override the Lords in June 2016. This means the referendum could be held in July or after the summer break in September 2016.

yep I can hear those tory grandee's sharpening their knives right now ...........watch out dave

 

[TomandJerry]

"The Scottish government has said that it will withhold legislative consent on the Conservative proposals to scrap the 1998 Human Rights Act, as it emerged that the SNP has already had informal discussions with Tory backbenchers who oppose the move.

The social justice secretary, Alex Neil, told the Holyrood chamber on Tuesday afternoon: “The Scottish government’s position is that implementation of the Conservative government’s proposals would require legislative consent, and that this parliament should make clear that such consent will not be given.”

Tory plans to repeal the act and replace it with a UK bill of rights could lead to a “complete standoff” between Westminster and Holyrood, according to a Scottish government source."

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

David Cameron is drawing up plans to bring forward an in/out referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union by a year to 2016 in order to avoid a politically dangerous clash with the French and German elections in 2017.

As the prime minister declared that he had a mandate from the electorate to renegotiate the terms of Britain’s membership, government sources said Downing Street was keen to move quickly on the timing of the referendum.

If peers break with the Salisbury convention, which says that the upper house should not delay measures in the winning party’s election manifesto, then the government would have to force the bill through using the Parliament Act. This would take place a year after the bill’s second reading in the Commons which means the prime minister could override the Lords in June 2016. This means the referendum could be held in July or after the summer break in September 2016.

Or is he bringing the referendum forward by a year because he is shit scared the OUT campaign will gather momentum if he comes back from Brussels with no worthwhile concessions ?

 

[Surrey_Albion]

The grandad of a boy (who grandad is legal gaurdian to aswell as four brothers and sisters) once said to a social worker (about his own daughter)after finding out his ddaughter was having her EIGHTH baby " why cant we just sterilise her?" The social worker replied "thats against human rights" grandad then replied "what about the human rights of her eight abandoned children?"

Maybe "human rights" need a little adjustment in some areas?

 

[Brovion]

In all honesty I have no idea, but I can only assume if the Act was scrapped then the rights would disappear? On the other hand the European rights would still be there. And well we don't have that specific right to choose the time of our own death otherwise assisted suicide wouldn't be illegal?

Well I'll answer it for you - no they won't. For a modern, civilised country like Britain the HRA is just a bit of floss, something to make us feel good about ourselves and perhaps a bit of constitutional tidying-up. And you're quite right, we don't at present have the 'right to die', so from my point of view the HRA as it stands is pretty irrelevant and not something I'd die in a ditch to defend.

 

[drew]

Now don't get me wrong as any opportunity to bash this government I will grasp with both hands however I think a lot of people are getting their knickers in a twist over this. The HRA was only passed in 1998 to allow people to seek redress through the British courts rather than go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. In other words, it made it more convenient. The Tories want to abolish the HRA and replace it with a UK Bill of Human Rights. At the moment, we don't know what they are going to change. However, that remains irrelevant as individuals will still have the right to take their case direct to the European Court. It is less convenient but the rights there will remain the same. Only if we withdrew from the European Convention of Human Rights could we restrict the rights of our citizens further.

 

[Gwylan]

However, that remains irrelevant as individuals will still have the right to take their case direct to the European Court. It is less convenient but the rights there will remain the same. Only if we withdrew from the European Convention of Human Rights could we restrict the rights of our citizens further.

And withdrawing from the Convention causes added difficulties. First, that wasn't in the manifesto, so the Lords could delay it. There's also the added difficulty that several Tory MPs (including the former Attorney General) have said they would vote against such a move. Finally, would Tories really vote against something that was the brainchild of Winston Churchill, the nearest thing to a Conservative deity

 

[London Irish]

"The Scottish government has said that it will withhold legislative consent on the Conservative proposals to scrap the 1998 Human Rights Act, as it emerged that the SNP has already had informal discussions with Tory backbenchers who oppose the move.

The social justice secretary, Alex Neil, told the Holyrood chamber on Tuesday afternoon: “The Scottish government’s position is that implementation of the Conservative government’s proposals would require legislative consent, and that this parliament should make clear that such consent will not be given.”

Tory plans to repeal the act and replace it with a UK bill of rights could lead to a “complete standoff” between Westminster and Holyrood, according to a Scottish government source."

That's hilarious. Yes I was reading one constitutional expert writing in the nationa press today that the Tories will require the consent of the devolved parilaments. Sturgeon 1, Cameron 0

I bet Murdoch didnt think of that when he was calling for an SNP vote to beat Labour

 

[Baldseagull]

"David Cameron is to move fast to capitalise on his general election victory by introducing key elements in the Tory manifesto for an EU referendum and the scrapping of the Human Rights Act that will be overseen by Michael Gove.

As Labour is distracted by contests for the leadership and deputy leadership of the party, the prime minister will outline plans for a raft of legislation in the Queen’s speech on 27 May that will transform the nature of British politics.

The prime minister, who has a modest majority, will move to entrench the Tories’ position by pressing ahead with radical boundary changes to overcome what is seen as a bias in favour of Labour. But Downing Street is to scrap plans to cut the number of MPs from 650 to 600, according to the Sunday Times."


The Act sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that individuals in the UK have access to. They include:

Right to life
Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Right to liberty and security
Freedom from slavery and forced labour
Right to a fair trial
No punishment without law
Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association
Right to marry and start a family
Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
Right to education
Right to participate in free elections

As I understand it, what keeps giving us problems is that when sentencing a criminal, no judge ever includes deportation to country of origin as part of the sentence. Therefore, when a criminal has served his punishment, he is entitled to all the rights that any of us are, and cannot just be shipped off because we don't like him. If deportation were included as part of the punishment, there would be no need to get rid of this.
We just don't operate within the law created by the ECHR in the way which we should, and so leave it open for defence lawyers to exploit.

I may of course be being totally naive, and Conservatives are scrapping it so that stormtroopers have the right to kick our front doors in and lock us up in forced labour camps on suspicion of having voted Labour.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

What would happen if the Act was scrapped then?

I've read something about it being replaced with our own Bill of Rights. It will be interesting to see in what way it is different.

 

[Rookie]

That's hilarious. Yes I was reading one constitutional expert writing in the nationa press today that the Tories will require the consent of the devolved parilaments. Sturgeon 1, Cameron 0

I bet Murdoch didnt think of that when he was calling for an SNP vote to beat Labour

Why would the repeal of an act of parliament require consent from a devolved parliament?

 

[sten_super]

It is less convenient but the rights there will remain the same. Only if we withdrew from the European Convention of Human Rights could we restrict the rights of our citizens further.

You play this down - but IMHO it's a major issue. It's like the restrictions placed on legal aid, and the increased costs of going to employment tribunals, which both happened in the last parliament. You may argue that the rights to these redresses still exists, but it takes longer and is more expensive. IMHO access to the Convention of Human Rights, and employment tribunals, should be universal, not dependent upon ability to pay.

 

[Gwylan]

Why would the repeal of an act of parliament require consent from a devolved parliament?

I'm no lawyer so may have got this wrong, but as I understand it, support for the HRA was embedded in the act that enshrined devolution to Scotland, NI and Wales and can only be undone with the consent of those countries.

Of course, there could be amendments to the devolution acts but they would take time (could be delayed in the Lords as they weren't part of the manifesto) and would scarcely be in accordance with Cameron's statement that he would give me powers to Scotland. He can't talk about FFA on one hand and remove powers with the other

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

So with this, the extension of the snoopers bill, and a new counter terrorism bill for 'extremist actions', it appears whatever civil liberties we still have will be getting eroded to new levels.

 

[mothy]

Why would an elected government push forward with implementing pledges in their manifesto?

 

[drew]

As I understand it, what keeps giving us problems is that when sentencing a criminal, no judge ever includes deportation to country of origin as part of the sentence. Therefore, when a criminal has served his punishment, he is entitled to all the rights that any of us are, and cannot just be shipped off because we don't like him. If deportation were included as part of the punishment, there would be no need to get rid of this.
We just don't operate within the law created by the ECHR in the way which we should, and so leave it open for defence lawyers to exploit.

I may of course be being totally naive, and Conservatives are scrapping it so that stormtroopers have the right to kick our front doors in and lock us up in forced labour camps on suspicion of having voted Labour.

According to statistics, over 4000 prisoners were deported in 2013.

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/deportations-removals-and-voluntary-departures-uk

 

[alfredmizen]

According to statistics, over 4000 prisoners were deported in 2013.

http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/deportations-removals-and-voluntary-departures-uk

there were also plenty that should have been, but weren't.


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/22/foreign-national-offenders-revoke-human-rights-act

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/495184/Human-rights-laws-745-criminals-deported

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...cases-not-Strasbourg-says-Chris-Grayling.html

 

[Gwylan]

I'm no lawyer so may have got this wrong, but as I understand it, support for the HRA was embedded in the act that enshrined devolution to Scotland, NI and Wales and can only be undone with the consent of those countries.

Of course, there could be amendments to the devolution acts but they would take time (could be delayed in the Lords as they weren't part of the manifesto) and would scarcely be in accordance with Cameron's statement that he would give me powers to Scotland. He can't talk about FFA on one hand and remove powers with the other

I've read up more on this now and I got it wrong. It's not the HRA that's embedded in the devolution legislation but the Convention of Human Rights. As far as I can see, there's no barrier to repealing the HRA and implementing a Bill of Rights but a problem in trying to not recognise the Convention. And, as has been pointed out, there would still be the right of appeal to the ECHR even if the HRA was repealed