An overnight paper from think tank Policy Exchange, backed by Blairite veteran Jack Straw, claims leaving the ECHR will have no impact on the operation of the Good Friday Agreement. An excuse deployed by the government repeatedly…
The report, authored by among others prominent lawyer Professor Richard Ekins KC, points out only one of the two GFA agreements relates to the ECHR and that one only imposes the need for “assurances” of protection from the abuse of devolved institutions. These can be provided in several ways by the UK after an ECHR exit…
It also details that the Windsor Framework has no bearing on a potential ECHR exit. Ekins says “neither the letter nor the spirit of the Belfast Agreement in any way requires the UK – or Ireland – to remain within the ECHR. And the agreements reached with the EU after Brexit confirm the point, leaving it open to the UK to choose to leave the ECHR.” Starmer’s excuse gone…
The report is also backed by Lord Stewart KC, former Advocate General for Scotland, Patrick Elias, a retired Lord Justice of Appeal, and Lord Faulks KC, former Justice Minister. Former Home Secretary Jack Straw said:
“I am not persuaded that the UK needs to withdraw from the ECHR the better to deal with the unacceptable number of unlawful and unfounded asylum seekers. Rather, I believe that we should de-couple our own human rights legislation from the Convention (as other European countries have done). But the debate about our future relationship with the ECHR, and its parent body, the Council of Europe, should be conducted on its merits.”
Yvette Cooper is today announcing plans to reform Britain’s use of ECHR’s Article 8 to deter small boat crossers amid speculation that Labour is inching the door open to go further after a concerted campaign from its own immigration hawks. Good luck getting that past Hermer…
Read the full paper below:
Shadow national security minister Alicia Kearns told Times Radio she would have put a precondition on a China trip if she were PM:
“I would have put a precondition that I was not going to go if I was prime minister, unless Jimmy Lai was coming home with me. I would also put a precondition in the six months leading up to the visit that I wanted a reduction in hostile acts against our country. But that’s not what we saw. And actually, in contrast, what we saw was clearly the Chinese Communist Party did put a precondition, which was that the new embassy in London had to be signed off. So why is it okay for China to set preconditions and to make very clear red lines about what they require for a visit, but we go without having put any ourselves?”