Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Publius's avatar

"The right has an aversion to international law, but the problem is not international law. "

The aversion to international law comes from the fact that it is a sleight-of-hand by those who want to replace national government with a one-world order. Part of this project is to call the dense and growing thicket of international conventions and agreements "law". Which then permits ignorant people to use the word "illegal" just as inappropriately.

It is inimical to liberty and makes democracy an empty façade.

On the ECHR, the priority is to detach its effect from our national law, which means for a start getting rid of the Human Rights Act.

There is no need to replace the Human Rights Act, or the ECHR, if we leave it, with something new. Our rights are contained within our own freely chosen national law.

Expand full comment
Bettina's avatar

If we remove domestic law which embodies a treaty, then it is down to the judiciary to assert in individual cases that we are failing to comply with obligations under said treaty, but I remain unconvinced that a citizen of a foreign country has any locus standi to mount an appeal to Strasbourg on that basis; nor to be entitled to legal aid to do so. Repealing the HRA 1998 would cut it off at the knees. Passing legislation that requires all applications for visas etc to be made outside the jurisdiction, with no exceptions, would deal with the problem once and for all because we could have surety requirements and abolish all work visas and student visas below PhD level.

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts