Its all daft. You need enabling legislation for the provisions of any treaty to have effect and therefore we just need to repeal the enabling legislation.
Main problem is activist judges. We need to clear out those Augean stables first job otherwise pointless repeating or enacting anything because they will just nobble it.
At least the Conservatives have done a study on the proposal. Reform, by contrast, have gone with the strategy of "if it sounds like a vote winner, we're for it".
If we learned anything from the appalling retreat from Brexit, it is that legal negations are a waste of time. Break the mould. Be rebellious. Declare a withdrawal and LEAVE. They’ll just have to handle it.
"Since the primary objective is to sort out immigration, which does not require ECHR exit..."
This is crux of the matter. Lawyers/legal experts will all disagree as this is, what is called in the trade " a dripping roast" aka money spinner.
Plus, as a political blogger it's important, I think,that you are able to see things in purely political terms. The ECHR has long lost its legal relevance as many member states actually realise and agree - plus, the international rules based order has, to all intents and pieces, already broken down. That genie is also out of its bottle.
The reality is that Treaties are broken all the time - The Windsor Framework is fudge from top to bottom - it wasn't designed to be durable or for that matter sustainable.
Sure there will be implications on leaving the ECHR and by implication the WF - whilst we're in a period of no/low/negative growth ( with this socialist government), surely its politically better to have the fights now with the EU/Strasbourg - Just looking ahead at what's facing the EU, France, Germany et al inc Ukraine they already have their hands full - at least Badenoch is being vaguely honest with the voters by giving us an option to leave the ECHR - we, the voters can weigh up the pros/cons and make a considered decision - in summary, whilst the EU looks to be slowly going under (down) weighted down by its own contradictions , why would we still shackle our selves to this decaying organisation any longer than we had to?
As Sydney Webb is reputed to have said to the then chancellor......on leaving the Gold Standard " no one told us we could do that" - good, strong leadership can take us a long way.
A great first analysis. I look forward to further comments. Surely looking at ways to change UK legislation with the ECHR as a backstop but amending ERA seems a practical option. People object to uncontrolled illegal access to UK lax practices that make these people a burden on the nation. Stop them with Royal Navy.
Then start to amend legal migration to make it fill a need but not a permanent pipeline to benefits they haven’t paid for ever.
As any good parent knows you sometimes have to be tough to be kind.
Its all daft. You need enabling legislation for the provisions of any treaty to have effect and therefore we just need to repeal the enabling legislation.
Main problem is activist judges. We need to clear out those Augean stables first job otherwise pointless repeating or enacting anything because they will just nobble it.
At least the Conservatives have done a study on the proposal. Reform, by contrast, have gone with the strategy of "if it sounds like a vote winner, we're for it".
That seems like quite a low bar.
I know, but my contempt for Reform is such that anything that looks more thought out is better.
If we learned anything from the appalling retreat from Brexit, it is that legal negations are a waste of time. Break the mould. Be rebellious. Declare a withdrawal and LEAVE. They’ll just have to handle it.
"Since the primary objective is to sort out immigration, which does not require ECHR exit..."
This is crux of the matter. Lawyers/legal experts will all disagree as this is, what is called in the trade " a dripping roast" aka money spinner.
Plus, as a political blogger it's important, I think,that you are able to see things in purely political terms. The ECHR has long lost its legal relevance as many member states actually realise and agree - plus, the international rules based order has, to all intents and pieces, already broken down. That genie is also out of its bottle.
The reality is that Treaties are broken all the time - The Windsor Framework is fudge from top to bottom - it wasn't designed to be durable or for that matter sustainable.
Sure there will be implications on leaving the ECHR and by implication the WF - whilst we're in a period of no/low/negative growth ( with this socialist government), surely its politically better to have the fights now with the EU/Strasbourg - Just looking ahead at what's facing the EU, France, Germany et al inc Ukraine they already have their hands full - at least Badenoch is being vaguely honest with the voters by giving us an option to leave the ECHR - we, the voters can weigh up the pros/cons and make a considered decision - in summary, whilst the EU looks to be slowly going under (down) weighted down by its own contradictions , why would we still shackle our selves to this decaying organisation any longer than we had to?
As Sydney Webb is reputed to have said to the then chancellor......on leaving the Gold Standard " no one told us we could do that" - good, strong leadership can take us a long way.
A great first analysis. I look forward to further comments. Surely looking at ways to change UK legislation with the ECHR as a backstop but amending ERA seems a practical option. People object to uncontrolled illegal access to UK lax practices that make these people a burden on the nation. Stop them with Royal Navy.
Then start to amend legal migration to make it fill a need but not a permanent pipeline to benefits they haven’t paid for ever.
As any good parent knows you sometimes have to be tough to be kind.