BRITAIN | Exiting the ECHR?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 05. 2024
- In April 2024, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak suggested that he would be prepared to see Britain to exit the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if it hampers the government's immigration policies. This stance has sparked controversy, as it would lead to Britain leaving the Council of Europe, which oversees democracy and human rights across the continent. Seen by many as another Brexit, such a move could also open the door to significant legislative changes, including the reinstatement of the death penalty. It would likely have profound implications for Britain's international relations, raising questions about whether Britain is heading towards another calamitous rift with Europe and even the United States.
Human rights development has been a central theme in international relations since the Second World War, beginning with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and expanding through numerous treaties, such as the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, among others. Regional initiatives like the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights complement this framework, supported by judicial bodies capable of adjudicating human rights violations. However, a growing sentiment for national sovereignty has led to resistance against external legal influences, exemplified by the UK's consideration of leaving the ECHR for a national framework, which would also necessitate its departure from the Council of Europe.
MY LATEST BOOK!
Secession and State Creation: What Everyone Needs to Know
Oxford University Press global.oup.com/academic/produ...
Amazon amzn.to/2MPY3W2
Audiobooks.com www.audiobooks.co.uk/audioboo...
SUPPORT THE CHANNEL
Hello and welcome! My name is James Ker-Lindsay, and here I take an informed look at International Relations, conflict, security, and statehood. If you like what you see, please subscribe. Even better, perhaps consider becoming a Channel Member or supporting the Channel through Patreon. Thank you!
SUBSCRIBE FOR FREE
czcams.com/users/JamesKerLind...
BECOME A CHANNEL MEMBER
/ jameskerlindsay
JOIN MY PATREON PAGE
/ jameskerlindsay
VIDEO CHAPTERS
00:00 Introduction and Titles
00:51 Human Rights Protection in International Relations
02:28 The Council of Europe and the ECHR
04:54 The Debate over Britain and the ECHR
07:10 The Case for Britain Keeping the Convention
09:01 The Case for Britain Leaving the Convention
10:41 Could Britain Leave the ECHR?
SOURCES AND FURTHER READING
Council of Europe
www.coe.int/
European Court of Human Rights
www.echr.coe.int
European Convention on Human Rights
www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/...
European Convention on Human Rights | CZcams Presentation • The European Conventio...
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
www.corteidh.or.cr/index.cfm?...
African Court of Human and People’s Rights
www.african-court.org/wpafc/
International Human Rights Treaties and Conventions | United Nations
treaties.un.org/pages/treatie...
Patrick Stewart sketch: what has the ECHR ever done for us?
• Patrick Stewart sketch...
EQUIPMENT USED TO MAKE THIS VIDEO
kit.co/JamesKerLindsay
MAP CONTENT
www.themaparchive.com
DISCLAIMERS
- The contents of this video and any views expressed in it were not reviewed in advance nor determined by any outside persons or organisation.
- Some of the links above are affiliate links. These pay a small commission if you make a purchase. This helps to support the channel and will be at no additional cost to you.
#ECHR #Britain #HumanRights #councilofeurope
This is another topic I’ve wanted to cover for quite a while. (Although I am not sure how well it will do. Please give it a like and drop a comment below if you can.) What do you think? Can Britain be trusted to protect its own human rights, as those who support leaving the ECHR claim? And would it really undermine the UK’s ability to press other countries on human rights? And could (or should Britain) reintroduce the death penalty if it ever did leave? As always, I look forward to hearing all your thoughts.
Correction: Russia didn't invade Ukraine. It's a ongoing proxy war dating back to 2014. Please stop repeating this mainstream news media talking point. At this point I believe in the cancellation of all mainstream political organizations.
🌚🌝
Britain should do whatever Britain believes is in her self interest. I’m surprised Sunak could be this based. Britain has long been a leader in human rights. I highly doubt they need the rest of Europe to remain so.
I would say it would undermine the UK here.
@@BMWE90HQ If we are a leader in Human Rights, there is no reason to leave the ECHR.
@@SpecialMuppetOperation the ECHR does not protect British citizens though. It protects non-citizen radicals who preach violent extremism to overthrow democracy from being deported from the UK. Is it a "human right" to come to the UK and preach that sharia law be introduced, infidels slaughtered and banning freedom of speech? The UK is a leader of human rights and the UK could easily start a new initiative to form a new and reformed organisation which does not suffer from the misguided priorities of the old one.
Brits, you are free to let yourself out. This convention is voluntary.
And I can understand why they'd want to leave. The European immigration policies have been appalling over the past decades. As one of our Australian Prime Ministers once said... We will decide who comes and when they can come. He also stated that immigrants should integrate and adopt our values. He also said Australia should favour skilled immigration. He was, of course, stating the bleeding obvious. No point in importing division.
@@toby9999 just do it. Get out of all international treaties. Let's see what happens.
@@user-ov5nd1fb7s Why do you, presumably a non-brit, think you know so much about our issues? You have no idea about life here.
@@toby9999 Then by all means, leave.
@@toby9999 In my opinion you're making a big mistake by directly linking the issue of immigration to the issue of leaving the ECHR. Yes, this is indeed what some politicians have been trying to do, but really, what precise fundamental problem will be solved by this? The ECHR does not directly dictate immigration policy.
Current talk of Withdrawal from ECHR is more about Tory politics than anything concrete.
Yes
The hypocrisy of European Convention of Human Rights is insane dawg. Israel shouldn't be a observer state.
So was brexit
Even talking about that is absolutely depraved and insane.
HUMAN RIGHTS - NOT ANY MORE IN THIS NEW TECHNO FEUDALISTIC WORLD !!!
It's about your "Human Rights" or rather the abolition of such rights. Maybe you've forgotten that other "rotten egg" Tony Blair who managed to Abolish Habeas Corpus, the foundation stone of British Human Rights.
I know that before Russia left the ECHR, the court helped quite a few Russian opposition activists. I'm sure it's doing the same for the citizens of other hybrid regimes right now. It's quite obvious that these regimes wouldn't recognise the ECHR, if democratic countries like Britain weren't members as well.
I think however, that responses to climate change and asylum applications should not be decided by the ECHR, but in national debates. I can totally understand people valuing their countries' sovereignty in these matters more, than helping a few opposition activists in far-away places like Turkey or Serbia.
"responses to climate change and asylum applications should not be decided by the ECHR, but in national debates" That's exactly what the ECHR has done. It has concluded a violation is present and made it clear that the violating memberstate now has to consider measures to adress this.
@@kimwit1307 The court doesn't impose specific laws, but it does set the limits of the debate.
@@Leiwanderer Which is no different from a national court in that respect.
@@kimwit1307 With the difference that national laws can be reformed and are applied equally. China will never have to appear in front of a court because it doesn't follow the Paris Agreement. And Switzerland won't be able to protect its citizens from climate change by reducing emissions.
Dont we have someone rather controversially in prison in the Uk currently? Is the ECHR doing anything about that?
A similar discussion is ongoing at the moment in switzerland because of a recent ruling against the country by the European Court of Human Rights about Climate change. The question many pose at the moment is how far into the democratic process the court should intervene especially in a country like switzerland with a semi direct democracy. What isyour opinion on the matter Professor?
As Always a very informative Video.
From what I understand the ECHR has concluded a violation is present and made it clear that the violating memberstate now has to consider measures to adress this, through democratic means obviously. What IMO seems to be the case is that the people who don't like this, almost all on the right of the political spectrum I might add, don't like the fact that climate change is even considered as a problem.
We should reform the treaties, to put them more in line with what is needed in this new reality. The world was vastly different in 1950's.
Thanks. But the fundamentals of these rights still apply. They were deliberately drafted to reflect basic democratic principles and universally understood rights.
@@JamesKerLindsay Few people have a problem with upholding democratic principles. The festering wound in the international treaty system is the migration problem. During last decades, people have learned how to abuse refugee rights and have much greater capability of doing so.
I believe that we should re-invent the asylum system, requiring refugees to preliminarily register beforehand and allow them to stay only until the problem in their country gets resolved - this would stop massive waves of people with dubious claims from coming and would take away the primary motive of abusing the system.
Britain as a member of numerous "Multi lateral" treaties, is of course just one member with just one vote. Something Trump when President realised, and he also realised the USA could do little about modernising or changing such "treaties". So he simply withdrew the USA from nearly all such treaties. Indeed he stated that if he as Presient could have taken the USA out of the UN he would have done that too !!! Which explains the reason for the last four years of the Democrat Party inspired "Witch Hunt" of Trump to try and prevent him getting back in again as President at all costs.
@@MegaMementoMori "allow them to stay only until the problem in their country gets resolved"
Germany already does this, unless the refugees can prove they speak German to a certain standard, and have integrated in society, which involves either getting a job or an apprenticeship place.
And we manage this as members of the EU and ECHR.
Yet humans are not.
Things have changed quite a bit since before 1950 too.
The Swiss are also talking about leaving the ECHR. One can argue that the ECHR needs reform.
The slowly rising background music always distracts me somewhat when I notice it.
Hi James, this question is not related to the video you posted, but I am trying to get information regarding the terms of the lease agreed by Britain and the Ottomans at the Cyprus convention in1878. I need to know the length of the lease , the terms of the lease and any other derogation this leasehold had.... thanks ..
Have you seen this by Prof Heinz Richter? dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/45144
@@JamesKerLindsay thanks james, but the terms of the lease are not discussed, nothing technical....
Isn’t the universal declaration of human rights enough?
In my opinion, no because the UNCHR doesn’t have any enforcement mechanism at all. The ECHR has extremely limited enforcement potential, but it’s something at least
The British public is absolutely sick to the back teeth of their government being incapable of taking any meaningful action
Very interesting topic, well explained. Is it possible that the Council has grown beyond its original intent?
Thanks. I think the Council is incredibly important. While I know that some might be unhappy with specific ECHR rulings, overall it does immensely valuable work. Many of the rights we now take for granted are the result of these bodies.
Not really, if anything it has probably shrunk. Originally, it was intended to be as the mechanism to hold the post-war “western bloc” of europe to account - which was definitely a result of overruling sovereignty, at POTSDAM and YALTA the allies drew lines on a map. The ECHR was part of that
Good evening James,
I feel this is just bravado from a prime minister who is certain to face a wipeout in the upcoming election. As you mentioned, the Northern Ireland issue would come up again if such a step is taken.
That said, I feel on issues like death penalty (which to me breaks the very principle of jurisprudence), often one could make simplistic arguments by which you could easily sway the public in a poll. Going back on this would be going back on one of the greatest progress we have made on the front of human rights in the 20th century. On that note, I feel recently, the current Tory government has not even been respecting their own court - so the foreign court point is irrelevant. Given it was a British court that said Rwanda was unsafe, you just pass a law stating that the country is 'safe' ? (How come that 'law' is not challenged yet?)
I feel with immigrants, it is a lot to do with perception, I would take an example from my country, ask an average person what percentage of French population are of 'foreign background', might give an answer close to 30% but the real numbers are barely 14% - and are highly concentrated in a few cities, and in UK, from what I have seen is fairly similar. The places that are loudest about immigration are the ones with no immigrants.
Thanks so much, Anirudh. You are so right on both counts. It has been shocking how the government has tried to circumvent the Supreme Court's decision that Rwanda is unsafe by passing legislation calling it safe! It was also very telling that immigration drove the Brexit vote, but the Brexit vote was highest in areas with the lowest rates of immigration.
Same old, same old. Apparently, who doesn't learn from past mistakes, is wont to make them again. And I'm not specifically referring to UK, we seem to be all in the same boat and rowing in the wrong direction
You are totally missing the point. Leaving the ECHR means your Human rights are again under threat. It also means Britain will stay "in bed" with the USA, in view of the extremely nasty turn of events, concerning the International Criminal Courts ruling that Britain & the USA are "Complicit" in this Genocide issue in Gaza. So leaving the ECHR, will allow Britain to steamroller the Gaza issue, which in other countries is becoming a "World Dividing" crisis, the likes of which we have not seen since the end of WW2 & the "Jewish Question".
They might just leave right before the election in a last roll of the Brexit dice.
Many worry that this could happen. However, on balance, I can't see them trying it. It would be a huge step, and many Conservatives know it would probably cost them more votes than it would win them at this stage.
I've looked everywhere for videos on the council of Europe (not the EU council) there isn't any. Please please do one.
Thanks. Hopefully, this provides a bit of background. Sadly, not many people know about it. A few people seem to care. (I know that this will be one of my worst-performing videos. I just felt it was important to tackle the topic.)
@@JamesKerLindsay"the video we need, not the video we want" kind of thing
I generally enjoy JKL's videos, but I think this one could have benefited from a more nuanced explanation. It would be helpful to include statistics on the extent of illegal immigration in the UK and its sustainability. Additionally, many of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) articles seem outdated, designed with a mid-20th century geopolitical context in mind. It's unfortunate that the ECHR and international conventional politics tend to be rigid and ideologically driven rather than rational and adaptable. This inflexibility prevents the UK from addressing the issue of over 85,000 illegal immigrants it receives annually more effectively.
Thanks. But I’m not sure how statistics would really change anything. (And I deliberately didn’t want to get into a long discussion about Rwanda.) Human rights are about how you treat people individually. It isn’t about aggregating them into faceless numbers. In fact, it’s precisely because this happened that we now have a system that tries to remember that each person is an individual human who deserves to be treated with respect. Every EU country is facing migration pressures. They aren’t coming up with plans to send people to a country that is deemed unsafe, but when faced with a legal challenge to this respond by passing a law saying it is in fact safe. I’d argue that going into detail actually makes the situation look even worse. And all this is really just a smokescreen divert public attention from the huge rise in regular migration. “Look at the asylum seekers in small boats coming in through the backdoor while we quietly but massively increase the number of people we’re bringing in through the front door.”
@@JamesKerLindsay Thank you for answering me. I agree that leaving the ECHR could lead to some form of de-democratization, but I see the rise of Wilders' party and similar right-wing shifts as far more significant issues. These shifts are a direct consequence of failed immigration policies, exacerbated by the inflexibility of international conventions, designed to deal with a very different world, as they adhere too rigidly to deontological principles.
here statistics and transparency, could help to illustrate the dilemma Sunak's government is facing, namely that:
the rights of one ought not inflict wrongs on the many.
@@JamesKerLindsayWhat exactly is wrong with regular migration?
Wasnt that the whole point of Brexit since its conception?
Take back national sovereignty, have domestic politicians makes laws for the UK, take control of the British economy, and control British borders and waters.
No.
@@davidellis2182 can you elaborate please?
@@kd1405 Brexit wasn't about leaving the ECHR, I don't think it was remotely part of the conversation. 'Sovereignty' doesn't = leaving the ECHR. Your average voter knows nothing about it.
@@davidellis2182 I dont think my average Brexit voter in particular would strongly (or moderately) disagree with Britain leaving the ECHR.
Sovereignty and human rights are not mutually exclusive. We can have both
Oh, the old “We need to leave the ECHR” fallacy. And to think that it was Winston Churchill’s idea and legacy to create a unified, cooperative, peaceful Europe with common laws and rules. ( Spoiler : GB is actually a group of countries in Europe ).
Before that, England declares UDI from the UK.
Says wants to get contol over its borders and reduce tax.
Nope
Interesting video, however, emphasising that the EU and the USA would not tolerate any move by the UK to exit the ECHR because it would undermine the framework of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreements of 1998, without actually mentioning the position of the co-guarantor of the Belfast Agreements, Ireland, is rather strange. These agreements form an international treaty between the UK and Ireland which has been registered at the United Nations. The "Good Friday Agreement" is not a UK domestic matter alone, Ireland, the US and the EU all have a stake in upholding, protecting and furthering the Belfast Agreements of 1998. The Irish government has warned the UK government against any attempt at undermining the Belfast Agreements by exiting the ECHR which is an integral part of the 1998 settlement between the parties in Northern Ireland and between the UK and Ireland.
Thank you for pointing this out
The Tories have openly stated they are willing to tatter treaties.
Brexit that garbage, uk courts for uk lands!
Professor, since you answered one of my comments, and you know the Belgrade-Priština issue very well - would you mind briefly sharing your take on it?
Do you think the May vote is a done deal and do you see Kosovo entering the Council of Europe? Or you think the application might be postponed, or even rejected altogether? There seems to be reluctance on the Italian and potentially even French side. From what I understood, the main sponsor is Germany, and allegedly some other European states are not so keen on letting it fly unconditionally, in order to counter the German influence (some insider information I got, could be totally wrong).
Also, do you think letting Kosovo in would be in accordance with both the spirit and the word of the current rules of the organization? Or is it just realpolitik at this finest, given Russian aggression on Ukraine and Serbia's ambivalent position?
Very much appreciated,
Regards from Belgrade
Thanks. Great questions. I’m not sure that it is a done deal. But it is looking likely. It passed through the earlier stage with a high degree of support. As for whether it should happen, I am torn. On the one hand, I really don’t think we should be rewarding Kurti for his atrocious behaviour. I also think this lessens leverage for a final deal. On the other hand, it will introduce a new set of constraints on Pristina and ensure that the Serbs in Kosovo have an international outlet for any violations of their rights. As for the German angle, I am not sure what Berlin is up to. But I have long since realised that no one knows what Berlin is doing. German foreign policy is an utter mess and seems to be consistently following a counterproductive path. This could indeed be the latest example, although I am also critical of its Srebrenica resolution at the UN. I don’t know what they are hoping to achieve. Then again, I also worry about what Serbia is doing. It is starting to look a little unhinged. Overall, it is an incredibly depressing picture. Every side has made terrible mistakes and no one seems to know how to resolve things!
@@JamesKerLindsay Many thanks for your valuable insight.
The biggest victims of the two current governments in Belgrade and Priština are the Kosovo Serbs. Life has never been easy in the southern enclaves, but Serbs in the north lived rather normal lives, despite occasional tensions. Thaqi was a very rational man and also had “baggage”, so the West could apply pressure when need be.
Kurti is a different breed - he spent some time in prison in central Serbia and didn’t succumb to pressure, by all accounts he held himself in a praiseworthy manner and doesn’t seem blinded by petty and mundane material interests. He is a hardcore nationalist, while Vučić, despite his somewhat fierce rhetoric, is an opportunist and the West has tons of leverage against him.
In any case, we need more people like you in the decision-making bodies of the political West, instead of 3rd class politicians who still suffer from all kinds of biases and cannot comprehend the region’s utterly complicated past. I am not an optimist, having in mind the overall lack of leadership almost everywhere in the West these days.
Keep up the good work, I am very happy to see the channel has been steadily growing.
Strange behaviour by the current government.
Given the title, many would jokingly say this was the case since the Act of Union in 1707.
I also misunderstood the title at first
Sovereignty, in this case means tyrannical dictatorship, racial segregation & bias and the removal of human rights
I'm not sure why you chose to include a clip of Patrick Stewart...
I knew this was about Immigration even before I watched the video.
Sadly, this is a reflection of the current times.
Thanks for the video Prof Ker-Lindsay. I think the current debate around the UK leaving the ECHR illustrates not only a large disconnect between the UK and Europe but a large internal division as well. As you stated, Northern Irish peace agreements revolve around the ECHR. Additionally, topics that have spurred the debate within the UK over leaving seem to really only hold weight in England. Capital punishment, if i recall correctly, is still widely unpopular outside of England. Such a decision, while unlikely, would just lead to further internal tensions with Scotland especially.
These aren't just "England only" issues. Migration has been a higher priority for England because it is the first port of call for migration - it's the closest point to Europe and most international travel comes in via English air and sea ports. So it's understandable that there would be louder voices in England (In the same way that complaints about migration in Europe have been longest and loudest in Spain and Italy - they are closest to the North African coastline and see the bulk of illegal crossings.)
As for issues like altering the legal system, I may be wrong, but there is already a difference between the law in England and Wales, and the jurisdiction over Scotland (which has it's own courts). I'm not sure about N.Ireland, but I believe that it too is separate.
Personally, I don't like the Conservatives (or Brexit), and I disagree with any stance that degrades the protection of human rights and our connection to other European states. However, I find it frustrating that ill-informed people (or politically zealous people) like to continue to frame so many political debates into another "anti-union" (or "anti-England"), or even "anti-Brexit" tirade, when they are far more nuanced than that.
I think the real question should be why it seems impossible to get more strict immigration policies? Despite immigration being a hot topic across Europe.
You want the answer ? Because the current (unrealistic) method of assessing a countries GDP, can be absurdly inflated, simply by adding a large number of (official) immigrants to your population figures annually. And in Britain's case this means keeping our seat in the G7 Economic Forum, which is of course based on a countries GDP. Being in the G7 means Britain is in the top 7 Economic powers on the planet. A seriously important position of power, as these top 7 countries effectively control the Worlds "Profit & Loss" abilities !!!!!
It's already strict. They have to wait until you're processed for 2 years and then you have 2/3rds chance of getting sent away. Historically, immigration was free and open, but it was the travel itself that was deterring. The only reason policies to restrict it were ever out in was because of racism. Things have changed with regard to that. Someday brits themselves might want to leave. Probably not a good idea to set the standards they would allow them to do so on fire.
If we change the 1% corrupt elite against the rest of us 99% to the 99% rest of us against the 1% corrupt elite we wouldn't be discussing human rights now or ever again as it would be a given.
I think leaving the ECHR Will! affect the NHS.
Considering how successful Brexit has been its obvious that we need to get rid of the last of these foreign jonnies interfering with our British Empire. Workers rights! Just think of the wonders of Victorian Britain.
Enough said?
If only Britain still had an Empire. It would mean our Politicians, Civil Servants & Military would be a darn sight better educated than they now are. For the simple reason we would have a constant & detailed input from much of the World. And be in a position to prevent many of the Worlds modern problems obtaining momentum !!!!!
You must be rich 🤣🤣🤣🤣
"Considering how successful Brexit has been"
LOL
@@railwaymechanicalengineer4587you don't have an empire because you couldn't keep It that would be the reality as well if you had one now
Thank you...
So first UK exited the EU. Now they're setting their sights on exiting the world 🙄
Maybe they should do like United States just ignore the laws do whatever they want. They're in the power they know the people with the guns so they can get a way with anything they want they do that in the United States
Oh I know why they don't because then there wouldn't be this video.
You forget that UK is not USA, not in terms of military might nor in terms of economic strenght.
You know what this will mean for you, yes?
@@subcitizen2012 that people can have your life destroyed because they can ask a judge to ignore the laws
We could always have a referendum on it, and I guarantee the people will want out.
Reminds me when the USA left the Paris climate accords.
The USA and UK seem to be going down a similar road and don’t really see eye to eye with their European allies.
@@beasley1232 No, we don't. It's always been us and them. Hence why we voted out. We're not Europeans.
@@Jin-Ro Well, arguably you becoming less and less British too.
@@Jin-Ro hmmm isolationism, hey that’s our thing 🇺🇸🇺🇸
In all seriousness tho if the USA or UK ever left NATO so will Canada 😂 and France would probably turn it into a European defense alliance because it is what France wants after all.
@@Jin-Ro you are European whether you like it or not, you're not African or Asian
Jesus, we might have to kick Britain out of the Commonwealth at this rate.
Australia and NZ are much better.
That would mean ... The final Good Friday
Agreement, endorsed by huge majorities across the island of Ireland, foregrounded its promise of rights and respect in the ECHR.Under the 2020 trade and cooperation agreement (TCA), the EU could be immediately terminated if the British government quits the European convention on human rights (EHCR). UK would the join Russia and Belarus as non members of the ECHR, so much then for the UK to lecture say China in human rights? No country would ever send thier citizens to the UK if there was an arrest warrant pending in the UK.
Thanks Prof👍🏻👍🏻
Thank you so much Peter. I hope all is well at your end.
Strasbourg is from alsace and they are not french
I was there last summer. I’m pretty sure it’s in France. 🙂
One stupidity tends to lead to the next one.
Pls see professor salvatore babones view on whether India is becoming dictatirship or not. You will revise your view presented in a past video I bet..
Liberalism is really the linchpin of effective democracies. It seems as though Liberalism is coming to an end. What replaces it? (Non-Fukuyamaists)
It's not coming to an end, it's just retreating temporarily. Globalization and modern information technlogies made it possible for uneducated stupid people to organize and to mobilize politically. They tend to be conservative and vulnerable to demagogery and populist propaganda. That's the major reason why conservatism is now winning and liberalism is retreating.
LGBTQ fascism
@@Vrishnaakh mutually exclusive words like "hot ice" or "tall dwarf"
If the tories say we should do something, you can count on it being the WRONG thing to do!
Friday is now my favourite day of the week!
Thank you very much indeed. Have a great weekend.
.........and statehood
Absolutely NOT!!!!! It would be insane
Britain has already been set to destroy its democracy when they put the right to demonstate entirely under the willfare of its police forces. In Eastern Germany we learnt in 1989 how important this right can be.
But there is a general feeling of going too far with the EHCR, but we have to answer the question if the EHCR is really responsible for this and not rather some very loud activists and media mechanisms. E.g. women today do not only demand equal rights but better rights and free reign against men today.
Certainly hope so. But the traitor establishment will not leave unless the people rise up.
The ECHR is a political body in Europe. It isn't the UN or a global institution. Many countries with strong judicual institutions aren't a part of it, including Japan, Singapore, the USA, etc. All of these nations have their own laws enshrining citizens rights and also have the death penalty. Why can't the UK have its own judgement on what it considers right or wrong? As Professor Lindsay stated, we have a strong history of human rights and the courts has increasingly become politicised in its judgements. Perhaps i dont trust the Conservatives to bring in replacement laws to mitigate the effects of leaving, but I still think with the current crises facing us with extremism by those with other citizenships, as well as record migration, we need to be able to take drastic action to try to remedy the situation. The ECHR was made for a different time. It is no longer fit for the UK.
Japan, Singapore, USA, etc. are not geographically part of Europe. If we leave the ECHR and political figures exploit the predicament, we'll effectively become Europe's Cuba.
"Why can't the UK have its own judgement on what it considers right or wrong?" One can argue that the current Rwanda-discuassion is proof that apparently the UK can't be trusted to have its own judgement on what is right and wrong. Leaving the ECHR is much like cutting off your nose to spite someone elses face. And the ECHR - the court that is - is not a political body. It is actually quite restrained and gives memberstates a lot of leeway in how they manage their affairs. If that court slaps you down, you generally have f-up quite badly.
As for as UK immigration is concerned: keep in mind that 99% of UK immigrationn is in fact of the legal kind. The tories have let a record number of people in (mostly from non-european countries I might add) as these were deemed necessary for economic reasons - like keeping the NHS running. So leaving the ECHR over the point of illegal; immigration doesn't make sense in that regard either. Limit the (need for) legal immigration and put better integration-rules into place instead. It's unlikely the ECHR will have any issue with that.
i agree with you
Britain needs to curb radical Islamism today or it will be a more dangerous crisis in the future than war with Russia.
hi from islamic republic of iran..!
@@kimwit1307 In what way is the Rwanda discussion proof that we can't handle our own issues and judgements? The issue has not only faced scrutiny in the Commons and Lords, but has also and will continue to face a judgement in our own high and supreme courts.
The ECHR is indeed increasingly political. The recent judgement for elderly Swiss women shows that it made a decision on the basis of its own ideological leanings, not on the ability for the Swiss government to affect climate change in any meaningful way to stop the heat waves which the claimants claimed were threatening their human rights. How does the Swiss government undertake 'sufficient measures' to combat climate change and how will that impact Swiss summers? The problem of climate change won't be changed there, it'll be changed in the habits of the biggest contributors worldwide, including the US, China and soon India. If you want to include Switzerland, you'd have to make a ruling on the entire EU, which has more sway. All the ECHR has done is punish Switzerland for something it can hardly control with vague terminology on how to remedy the situation. That is one example of the ECHR's judgement, but I'm sure there's others to be looked at if you like.
Thirdly, 99% of UK immigration isn't legal. The last official estimates from june 2022 to june 2023 was a net migration of 672,000. In the same time-frame, ''irregular migration'' 85% of which via boats, as well as other illegal routes, was 52,530. That's closer to 7.8% of net migration being illegal/irregular, which is set to increase as a percentages for the year june 2023 to june 2024 as boat crossings have already hit record highs this year in january and march. The main crossing season is June until september, so we'll have to see how many come then but it isn't positive considering 2/4 months this year have had record highs. This will combine with predicted lower net migration levels total to make illegal crossings a greater proportion of net migration for the year june 2023-june 2024.
The ECHR won't just have issues with us. Multiple countries are suffering with the same issues that have caused the UK to look at the Rwanda solution in the first place. We aren't the only nation to use a third country to host illegal/irregular migrants and we won't be the last. Even the EU uses such deals.
Turkey was paid 6 billion Euros in 2016 to stop Syrian refugees from crossing into the EU. The EU has paid 234 million Euros total to Morocco for help in migration, and Morocco accordingly stopped 75,000 migrants in 2023 from getting into Spanish territories in North Africa. Similar deals are being made with Tunisia and Mauritania, as well as cooperation with Libya. How many of those countries are 'safe'? Why aren't those deals stopped by the ECHR? Apparently, the ECHR believed Turkey to be suitable. The ECHR also seen push back in Italy, which is being denied the ability to send migrants from Libya back after they reach Italian waters. You wonder how long it will be until Meloni says enough is enough. I know that final point is another topic in part, but it highlights that the UK is not some outlier who is flagrantly breaking international law for the hell of it. It is one of many countries who want to adopt a common approach to handling irregular migration, and is one of multiple countries being frustrated with the ECHR.
@@benpalmer7596 An international court is an extra layer of scrutiy and protection, away from the national sovereignty. There is a reason Russia left the ECHR: it didn't want the scrutiny as it was rightfully getting slapped on the fingers again and again. If getting rid of human rights protection is your solution, you should re-examine yourself.
"the ability for the Swiss government to affect climate change in any meaningful way" What is meaningful? If every country points to another by saying they are much bigger 'producers' of global warming, we'll get nowhere. At the very least every country should be obliged to uphold its international commitments. Then they can say; we've done what we can.
"Thirdly, 99% of UK immigration isn't legal." Fine. But the by far greatest number is legal. And it should be noted that a main reason why the illegal immigration happens is that the UK (among others to be fair) has pretty much closed of most of the legal routes. Entering the UK illegaly has become the only way most many of these 'boat-people' to come in and apply.
"Even the EU uses such deals." The EU deals are more concerned with preventing the border-crossings in the first place and not so much about sending them back to wait there. Whether these will actually work remains to be seen. Many point to Australia as an example, but that country has all but stopped the practice as it proved to be impractical and too costly.
What is needed IMO is making legal routes available and try to make sure that people who come already can be assured that they have a chance to get in, either as any asylum-seeker or on a work-visa. Also making sure that the immigration service is funded well enough to quickly determine (within weeks or at most a few months) who has the right to asylum and who doesn't. A large part of the current crisis is simply that the departments of immigration don't have the necessary capacity, with massive backlogs and overlfowing refugee-centers as a result, forcing them to house them in hotels and such. This is in many ways a manufactured crisis.
Within the EU a better way to spread the asylum-seekers is needed so that countries like Italy and Greece no longer have to bear the brunt of it. And if certain countries in the EU dont want that, they can just help pay for the procedures, integration and accomodation instead. The UK is on its own in this regard, I'm afraid.
it wont matter anyway the uk has way more immigration than most European countries that are in the echr some non European countries also have very high immigration like canada and the leader of the uk really don't care about this issue .i think the uk is a human right disaster in other ways like rights to privacy and freedom of expression
Because Brexit is such an enormous success?
it's neither a success or failure, both sides lied. almost nothing has changed.
hardly surprising.
Human rights are foundational for a humane future of the human race.
They can only be strengthened through collective efforts, not every country defining them in their own ways.
Thanks. I agree. I think having these types of regional and international bodies is vital. Defining human rights on a national basis is indeed disastrous.
@@JamesKerLindsay trust you, as always, to delve into issues most tend to ignore.
I think Rishi would call an election and fight it on the issue of leaving the ECHR before he actually went ahead and did it
Balfour mark, well I got no current number?
This video was an excellent analysis.
Thank you very much indeed.
Prof Ker-Lindsay I strongly suspect that this is the Conservative Party grasping at what ever straws they can conjure up.
Does the UK really want to join Belarus and Ŕussia.
I used to be proud to be British.
Now I am increasingly disappointed and disgusted by the UK.
Classic right wing populism destroying liberal values.
I had a 7 year friendship with someone in UK. I had to end it recently. I said exactly what you said. "UK used to be a giant and always stood for what was right no matter what." (I realize UK has also made a lot of historically shit decisions, but you could always count on the average person to be sensible and have some regard for human life and experience).
UK inspired me to write a short story about the future of the world in 2300. An emergent Scottish dictator over a rising "New Europe" is completing the rituals concluding the ending of a major war against a North African "Atlantis" country in a post climate collapsed ecology.
If people can't tolerate immigration today, imagine what will people be like when immigration is up to 50 times worse in the coming century or so? Today, it's an unconscious obsession with turning other people away, tomorrow will be open war and full throated Hitlerian eradication in a world diverted by zero sum game.
This is what happens when we abandon basic human decency and human rights. A horrendous world where people completely lose their basic humanity and morality so they can hate.
can you make a video of Netanyahu's future situation because of the ongoing war???
Sovereignty? Why does it matter to me who protects my human rights as long as they are protected. The British government wanting to leave is just an indication that they don't value my human rights.
I agree. It is a government saying that it believes it should have the right to determine what is in the best interest of its citizens. That might seem to be the way things should be done. The problem is that when British courts rule on something the government doesn't like, it is now passing legislation to amend reality to get around the courts!
Frankly, if the only reason your government respects your rights is because an outdated activist organization tells them too, then leaving isn't going to change much.
@@sagunsingh7415 Frankly, when the pretence is over and the mask is off, as they attempt to normalise their punitive victimisation of the most vulnerable in society ... things could get far worse than they already are.
Should have left years ago. There is nothing to stop the UK introducing it own version of the ECHR but removing all reference to the EU.
The ECHR is completely separate from the EU. It is part of the Council of Europe, which the U.K. founded a decade before the EU. (And was a pet project of Churchill’s.)
Regardless of Conservative Party politics, the UK has some legitimate grievances when it comes to being scuppered from enforcing immigration law & combatting blatant abuse of the system.
Basic & long accepted laws that are not in any way controversial.
Personally I think the biggest threat to the ECHR is the ECHR itself and its activist judgements.
They are allowed to enforce immigration, in fact they're among the more strict, 2/3rds of asylum claims are denied. If you want it to be more efficient than that, they will have to fund and expand. Also, racism and bigotry are NOT legitimate grievances.
I feel the key issue is this: can Sunak campaign on the Rwanda plan being somehow eventually workable, or will he need to admit that it's dead? It doesn't matter what actually happens after the election (after all, Labour will be in power) but rather whether Sunak will be humiliated and the Conservatives further demoralized before the electorate? It's such a key policy that they will cling to anything which keeps it alive in the eyes of voters.
(On the ECHR itself: there does need to be discussion on what the court is for and how it works. So many countries---not just the United Kingdom, and certainly not just rogue dictatorships---dislike the court and its judgements for various reasons. If so many societies *don't* agree with the court then there will be an acceptability crisis. It will be worse for human rights if we have the facade of justice but the reality of ignored decisions and general contempt.)
Your looking at the problem with "blinkered vision". This issue involves Britain as part of a "World order" not a purely internal domestic problem !!!!!
Hmmm?............
Leave the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR)?
What’s next for the UK, the ‘Johnny No-Mates’ of Europe?
Exiting the UN?
Departing the International Postal Union?
This process will, logically, result in the Dis-United Kingdom, becoming a weird European version of North Korea, but with fewer friends..,
Thank you so much Professor, for this extremely informative video!
I would like to remark that a certain background sound that you have been inserting in your videos to emphasize certain points, is very annoying and distracting to me. I don't know if others are bothered as well but I just wanted to express my discomfort with that.
Finally, I was very glad to see Professor Xavier defending Human rights for both regular humans and mutants alike. He's such an icon!
Der PJKL, Thank you for another well researched and developed piece. To a degree this argument has already been done. If one envisions Europe as a single country, then this is issue and BREXIT are issues of conflict revolving around Federalism, an issue of going all the way back to the Greeks.
If one is an American, this same argument is currently described ad "States Rights", and has been a ongoing consideration in America since the late 1700's, meaning what powers belong to the national government, and what powers belong to the state?
The lager issue here is does the UK wish to be part of a larger confederated body, or not?
Sooner the better, maybe then we can have an actual brexit instead of a brexit in name only
Have a referendum
Yes, because that went so well last time. :-) People had a chance to decide on something they didn’t understand, and made a terrible decision most now regret! Seriously, I know otherwise very intelligent people (or so I thought) who voted Leave just to give Cameron a kicking.
@@JamesKerLindsay "otherwise very intelligent" is a heck of a creative way to address someone's stupidity, I'm totally adding that to my toolkit 😅
Why vote in elections ? I'm no economist , how can I as a voter determine which party's /candidate's economic platform is truly better for my country? What's different about a referendum ?@@JamesKerLindsay
king henry the 8th ghost will forever rule british politics whether they are aware of it or not
4:21- thought we were about to get a countries of the world cover
I mean, the UK outlawed public protest a few years ago, so this is par for the course
On już jest jako zgon.
People of Britain must vote to stay or to leave then leaders can take it from there
That didn’t go very well for us last time
Because the EU has been punishing the UK. Brexit didn't work that the EU still has a lot of control over UK politics.
Fun fact: the USA, Russia and China don’t recognize ANY human rights courts. The USA 🇺🇸 doesn’t even recognize the International Criminal Counts.
In fact the USA has a bill that would allow the USA to invade the Netherlands 🇳🇱 if they dared ever bring an American to the ICC.
Fun fact: the USA and China don’t recognize ANY human rights courts. The USA 🇺🇸 doesn’t even recognize the International Criminal Counts.
In fact the USA has a bill that would allow the USA to invade the Netherlands 🇳🇱 if they dared ever bring an American to the ICC
Now it is clear who is violating human rights.
Based on the title, if only this video had come out 300 years ago lmao
Rishi Sunak, the choco vanilla ice cream, brown outside white inside.
Each owned country even together or united have each owned rights to control to thier owned nation for the benefits of the people's especially the descendants from thier ancestors to continues to celebrate thier very owned culture traditions that comes from thier ancestors. Those who comes and living ligally go back to celebrate your ancestors culture and traditions during celebrations.
Very interesting!
What's the point of the United Kingdom being in the European Convention on Human Rights if the the United Kingdom is no longer in European Union? It's just a bad deal at this point.
The ECHR is part of the Council of Europe, which is completely separate to the EU (and was founded a decade earlier than the EUropean Union). The Council deals with democracy and human rights and has 46 members. Britain was in fact a founding member. I cover all this in the video.
The UK is now a third tier, diminished nation despite rhetoric to the contrary. How can it be sensible to seek pariah status and splendid isolation in a world where larger, collaborative alliances are becoming the norm. The success of BRICS, a forceful response to the ruinous, even tyrannical hegemony of the USA over the past sixty years, exemplifies this. Due to the accursed Brexit, the UK is now beholden to a dystopian, floundering USA and we are obviously sharing in its unpopularity. Do we wish to be known as a state that shows contempt for international law and human rights legislation that we helped to devise many decades ago? Sadly, it seems that we do.
They didnt kick out Azerbaijan for atacking Armenia or Turkey for invading Syria or Cyprus, like they did with Russia?
There have been many cases where countries have taken on other countries, and individuals have won huge cases in court against states. Just look up the Loizidou case against Turkey. It was a monumental decision that almost sae Turkey expelled from the Council of Europe, until it agreed to pay compensation to Greek Cypriot refugees. this would not have been possible without the ECHR.
The PM’s concerns about sovereignty are valid, hopefully this human rights group will let him have his way without interfering
They're not a human rights group anymore than a Communist government is a workers party. Quite the opposite in fact.
They are not leaving the ECHR
There is a very simple solution to the Rwanda plan
Just copy whatever Denmark is doing
What are they doing?
They can leave planet Earth if they want..
Cause Brexit is going so damn well ….. Laughable
Do it,
RULE BRITTANIA! LEAVE THE ECHR ; VOTE REFORM!!
lmAo Star Trek now?
As long as such extreme disparities in wealth exist, people will be moving to the richer parts, regardless of laws. The Rwanda Scheme does nothing to address the problem at its source.
They already did that appeasing Israel
The big rights issue is really the mismatch between traditional UK values and Islam. Oil and water. In this case I wonder which side will eventually lose its human rights? I have my suspicions that the balance of power is inexorably tipping one way in particular. Time will tell.
You reap what you sow
Hello Professor, personally think this could be a ploy by Sunak for election points with the Tory right, as a Labour government seems to be unlikely to go ahead and leave the council. However, it seems anything is possible with British politics these days!
Thank you for the information, James.
I would like to ask a question about my own country (Turkey).
Turkey has received over 10 million (unofficial ) refugees since the civil wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria started. Most of them came to Turkey to cross to European countries. And these refugees are not allowed to cross to the EU, so their numbers are increasing day by day.
Far Right Nationalist Party (ZP) : It claims that the government has signed dirty deals with Europe and is forcibly keeping migrants who want to transit in Turkey.
The far-right party claims that Turkey has the highest number of refugees in the world and that Turkey has no such obligation under international law.
The Nationalist Party claims: Turkey is obliged under international law to allow these asylum seekers to pass to the countries they want to go to and to deport them to their home countries.
Dear James, is what the far-right party says in line with international law?
Can the government really send asylum seekers to the country of their choice or deport them to their own country?
Can Turkey be sanctioned if the far right comes into coalition and does what they say?
Thank you so much Halil. Immigration is obviously an extremely entice issue in many countries, and will only continue to be so. The combination of conflict, political instability and climate change (often working together and reinforcing each other) will only increase the numbers of people fleeing to Europe and elsewhere. There are rules about asylum and handling refugees. But there is also a growing realisation that it also requires greater political cooperation and dialogue. We are also seeing a trend whereby countries are using the issue to wage attacks against neighbours if secure political leverage. Turkey’s indecently susceptible to this as it does indeed have one of the highest portions of refugees in the world. We saw what happened in 2015, when it attempted to push a million into Europe. It required major new agreement. But even now it still has a very high number. In this sense, I understand why many in Turkey are deeply unhappy and feel that the county has taken more than its fair share. Again, it is going to take political and legal cooperation.
@@JamesKerLindsay Thank you James.
I am aware that the current administration is using it as a foreign policy tool. And this behavior of the government has not gone down well with the country at large. in addition to the economic deterioration and the dissatisfaction of the secular side...
Erdogan and his party suffered the biggest defeat in its history in the local elections on March 31, 2024.
As far as I understand, there is no way for the ultra-nationalist party to implement anti-refugee policies. Or it seems unlikely without international cooperation.
I will be following your broadcasts carefully, James. Thank you very much.
Tories will go down in the history as the slayers of United Kingdom
Very good work!!! Another reason for me to stay in the E.U... Thank you so much!!!
The entire concept of human rights starts at the wrong end. There are no rights unless other people accept and perform duties, including duties "not to".
If the Ten Commandments are observed, the question of rights does not arise.
Legal frameworks could, with advantage, be reformulated in terms of duties. This would both simplify and improve public understanding.
EU are debating the same type of deport to safe third country , Brexit this Brexit that has nothing to do , Europe will change echr rules once Uk leaves it , the EU will be worried Italy France and the Baltic countries will follow the Uk
The English had the same believes before the Brexit. It's failed spectacularly. Now they playing the same game: 'Our withdrawal will make the system collapse'. England has to accept that they just not that important anymore. It sucks, I know.
@@marrs1013 hehehe It's failed spectacularly , which part have we failed ?
@@matthewireland2246
The economic part.
@@marrs1013 im listening how does are economic situation compare to all the euro countries ? where do we compare with the g7 ?
@@marrs1013 What metric are you using for the "failed spectacularly" claim? I'm looking at G7 GDP growth statistics and the UK has been moving pretty much along side other G7 nations. You could argue they had a slightly bigger Covid dip but they also had a slightly better recovery. And currently looming crisis seems to be hitting Germany's growth way harder than the UK.
If the views of an international organization are at odds with the democratic will of a sovereign nation, that nation's government is obliged to its citizens, not the organization. The rightness or wrongness of their opinions is irrelevant.
No. Democracy does not mean overriding human rights. It means protecting the individual against the tyranny of the majority. A free society does not mean that its members can be abused in the name of the will of the people. For instance, would you accept that a majority of a different political persuasion to you has the right to lock you up for your views? Democracy is not the majoritarianism. Sometimes it takes an outside body to ensure that this is the case.
@@JamesKerLindsay That is not the definition of democracy, either literally or popularly. From Webster's:
"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."
Democracy is "rule of the people". The protection of minority rights have existed in many non-democratic political bodies throughout history, and many democracies today lack such protections. While most modern liberal democracies include the protection of minority rights, that itself is not democracy.
@@jaredspencer3304 what you are describing isn't "democracy" it is "populism".
Learn basic terms before lecturing others.
@@jaredspencer3304Your original comment indicates that you are confusing "populism" with democracy.
Learn basic differences.
Outsider's perspective: Brexit has been an absolute disaster for the UK, and it seems like the leadership is dead-set on acting like it hasn't been.
Also, I've despised Sunak since he made jokes about Brianna Ghey (the transgender teenager who was murdered) while the girls mother was present.
That would be a terrible move for Britain, and isn't worth the short term "solutions" it would allow