Cameron repeats call to scrap Human Rights Act

The Press Association is reporting that the Conservative leader has repeated his call for the Human Rights Act to be scrapped and replaced with a British Bill of Rights.  Interviewed by BBC radio in the West Midlands he accused Labour of being "blind" to the HRA's failings.  Speaking after yesterday's news that the HRA would prevent Learco Chindamo, the killer of headmaster Philip Lawrence, from being deported, Mr Cameron said:

"The fact that the Human Rights Act means he cannot be deported flies in the face of common sense.  It is a shining example of what is going wrong in our country. He is someone who has been found guilty of murder and should be deported back to his country... what about the rights of Mrs Lawrence or the victim?"

The Government has decided to appeal against the Chindamo verdict.

Open Europe Director Neil O'Brien has warned that EU plans for harmonisation of justice will only increase the extent of public powerlessness over justice issues: 

“This ruling is the thin end of a very long wedge.  Harmonisation of justice and home affairs laws will throw up more and more cases in which politicians are powerless to act in cases where most of the public expect them to.  The Government tend to dismiss concerns about harmonisation of justice and home affairs law as ‘scaremongering’.  But the reality is that there really is a tension between the development of EU criminal law and the public’s desire for accountability in this area.  While majority voting and harmonisation might be appropriate for product standards in the single market, they are inappropriate in home affairs and criminal law.  The Government appears to be in denial about what they have signed up to.  The next phase of harmonisation under the constitutional treaty would take justice and policing further out of the control of ordinary voters.  It would mean more power for EU judges who cannot be held accountable to anyone.”

Comments

[Alan S]

Good. This is the bold sort of policy that voters want to hear.

[Mountjoy]

The HRA is bad news and this manifesto commitment is most welcome. UK judges can be silly sometimes, but at least they are UK judges.

[David Boothroyd]

The Human Rights Act has absolutely nothing to do with it. It conferred no rights on people in the UK that they did not already possess before it. I think it's a pity so many people (deliberately) misunderstand what the Human Rights Act is.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Half a hurray to that, scrap the HRA (or "that scheme I set up so that my wife could earn herself senseless at the taxpayers' expense" as Tony Blair likes to call it).

But what's a "British Bill of Rights" when it's at home? Why do we need one? What's it going to say? The Tories have been waffling on about a BBR for ages, has nobody got roung to saying why we need one and what it might say?

[Machiavelli's Understudy]

It might be the sort of 'bold policy that voters want to hear', but yet again, Cameron has got it completely wrong.

Chindamo has a right to be here. This is nothing to do with the HRA and everything to do with his rights as an EU citizen.

On most occasions I've come across where an HRA case is cited in a tabloid newspaper, the case has usually gone against the plaintiff.

Regardless of what Dave says, any future Bill of Rights (I don't know what's so wrong with the current edition) would still have to yield to the ECHR and the ECJ.

[Tory T]

The HRA is not imposed on us by the EU - the ECHR is not EU law. It's separate and we can and should pull out of it. Cameron again shows his good European credentials in committing us to repatriate this legal power.

[Michael McGowan]

Apart from ever-so-clever lawyerly remarks, what has Machiavelli's Understudy got to say to Mrs Lawrence? Or is it the case that as far as the champions of "human rights" are concerned, this particular Lawrence family are expendable? I don't remember that they took the same line with the family of Stephen Lawrence (no relation).

[Alex Swanson]

Erm, didn't we already have a Bill of Rights, dating from 1689?

Oh I forgot - it includes the right to bear arms . . . can't have that . . . might involve trusting ordinary people . . .

Seriously, Cameron may have suggested a new Bill of Rights, but I haven't read anything telling me what would actually be in it. I suspect it would be like the Weimar or Stalin constitutions, full of fine words, but actually unenforceable by the ordinary citizen. Cameron has already shown by his actions the low opinion he has of his own membership - how likely is it that he would in practice show more respect for the opinions or judgements of the citizenry as a whole.

[Paul Oakley]

Half-correct Tory T at 13.04. It is a condition of our membership of the EU that Britain is a signatory to the ECHR. The ECHR Articles are repeated within the text of the 1998 Act. If we were to repeal the Act we would still be subject to the provisions of the Convention although its application would be undertaken by the Strasbourg judges.

PS - I am very much in favour of repealing the Act and withdrawing as a signatory to the Convention.

[Mark Fulford]

Most people assume that the HRA does what it says on the tin. We have to be careful not reinforce the common misconception that Conservatives do not care about people(’s rights).

[Sean Fear]

In fact the HRA does have a bigger impact than the ECHR. Judges have a legal obligation now to interpret legislation so as to make it comply with the HRA wherever possible, which in practice gives judges considerable scope to legislate. No such obligation to interpret legislation to make it comply with the ECHR existed prior to 1998.

Nor is the HRA irrelevant here, as one ground for not deporting the man would be that to do so would breach his right to a family life (presumably violating someone else's right to life is of secondary importance here).

But in any case, when laws yield unjust and perverse results, they should be changed.

[cameron's announcement is rubbish]

Cameron is lying. He is only talking about altering one HRA for another. He is NOT going to leave the ECHR therefore we would remain bound by the Strasbourg judges.

This is the same rubbish the Tories have been peddling for years and they semi get away with it because nobody in political media understand difference between ECHR/HRA/ECA 1972.

Davis is anyway more interested in being friends with Muslims / Liberty than anything else so they may as well pack their kit and...

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

"Cameron repeats call to scrap Human Rights Act"

Is it actually Conservative policy to scrap the HRA, or is it just posturing ? Rather like the calls for the scrapping of IHT on first homes and a referendum on the European Constitution which have been made, but which are not Tory policy (bit like leaving the EPP, actually).

Perhaps if it were made a firm policy, Cameron's cries could be taken a little more seriously.

[Rob]

Whilst Mrs Lawrence and her family have suffered terribly, I don't recognise this so called human right to live without fear of ever bumping into the perpetrator and to have him removed from the country. It's not a human right we confer to other families who have had a loved one murdered. He has lived here for most of his life and I don't believe the decision flies in the face of common sense at all, despite what Cameron says.

Common sense says to me that this man, like all murderers, should stay in prison for a very long time.

[Tory T]

It's Conservative policy, Stephen - and from a ukip troll who clogs up the comments every day with your anti-Tory propaganda, "posturing" is a bit pot & kettle (and the same goes for Chad at 13:21)

[Alex Swanson]

He has lived here for most of his life

So is he a British citizen or not? If he's not then he has no claim.

My wife and I saw his lawyer on TV bleating that he might be deported to Italy despite knowing no Italian. Her comment was, "He's been in prison for years. What's he been doing with the time? Didn't he know he might be deported, and in that case why didn't he learn?"

[James Cullis]

epeal this dumb law NOW human rights is a stupid idea, if we are truly conservative it is on this isue we can show itets commit ourselvs to repealing this rubisb and start bing true to our vallues

[Realcon]

If he was deported he could come straight back in anyway.

This party needs to get a complete grip on the power giveaway to the EU - if it doesn't what is its purpose?

[Opinicus]

The answer of course is to leave the EU...

Failing that...

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of a lawyer to amend the HRA to take the sting out of its tail by
1)Specifically require the judges to have regard to the rights of the wider community and weight those rights against those of the litigant
2)Remove legal aid for HRA cases
3)Remove compensation for HRA cases and make the remedy the restoration of the right. After all that's what they want isn't it- it's not about money surely.

[Paul Oakley]

Troll alert @ 14:01?

[Stephen Tolkinghorne]

"It's Conservative policy, Stephen"

Can you provide me with a link to demonstrate it is Conservative Party policy ?

I have looked on the Tory website to see if there are any policies listed, and of course the page is empty. How apt !

As for being a member of UKIP: that's a good idea. I shall cancel my Tory party membership and join them.

[Think about it]

"(and the same goes for Chad at 13:21)"

Oh dear, Tory T, once again you accuse the wrong person of being me.

Looking back, for some strange reason, I've had more people agreeing with me over the past two days than any other poster.

How do you explain that Tory T?

[Serf]

his lawyer on TV bleating that he might be deported to Italy despite knowing no Italian

As problems go, this has to be a pretty insignificant one. After all if you want to learn Italian, Italy is a pretty good place to do so.

[Ken Stevens]

Paul Oakley | August 21,14:09
"Troll alert @ 14:01?
..'repealing this rubisb and start bing true to our vallues' "

Oooh what a good idea to bing true ;-)

[Teesbridge]

A more subtle way forward would be to remove the nonsense of legislating judges, by simply requiring any HRA case to be tried before a Jury.

The oh-so-sophisticated (and Legal-Aid-funded) arguments that their dozy lordships fall for are unlikely to pass the commonsense filter of a dozen random citizens.

And Cameron cannot then be accused of striking down "umanrites", but can offer a policy that chimes with the silent majority's wish to see proper, comprehensible justice.

[John Moss]

Chindamo is low-life scum, but he has a genuine right to be low-life scum in this country. The Government is wrong to use taxpayer's money to fight this.

They should be requiring all people who kill with knives to serve a minimum of 20 years in jail and those who kill with guns to serve a minimum of 30. They should be considering whole life terms for those who kill more than once and they should be building 20,000 new prison places.

The Chindamo thing is just Brown trying to spin the image - look at me, I'm hard!

[Paul Oakley]

Don't blame the judges Teesbridge (or, indeed, the lawyers). See section 2 (1) of thw Act:
"A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen under this Act in connection with a Convention right MUST take into account any—judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights,opinion of the Commission given in a report adopted under Article 31 of the Convention,decision of the Commission in connection with Article 26 or 27(2) of the Convention, or decision of the Committee of Ministers taken under Article 46 of the Convention,
whenever made or given, so far as, in the opinion of the court or tribunal, it is relevant to the proceedings in which that question has arisen."

(my emphasis)

This Labour government is the author of its own misfortune. The Courts must apply the law whether or not judges or lawyers personally agree with it.

[Yet Another Anon]

The UK doesn't need the Human Rights Act or a Bill of Rights.

Withdraw from the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights renouncing the convention. Reintroduce Capital Punishment, abolish jury trials, give police extra powers in terms of dealing with suspects and make prison regimes far harsher with smaller cells and Corporal Punishment an option in prisons and unlimited internment for terrorist suspects. Then the UK can properly deal with terrorists and criminals without restrictions.

[Yet Another Anon]

Troll alert @ 14:01?
Just a bad typist I think.

[Patsy Sergeant]

David Bothroyc @ 12.54 - Whether suitable laws already existed before the HRA, may well be the case, but to say that people are 'deliberately misunderstanding what the HRA is', I would respectfully suggest, is being thoroughly legalistic, in plainer words - deliberately misunderstanding the concern that is driving the comments of most posters on this subject, and indeed most ordinary citizens in this country - excluding of course - a good number of lawyers, AND a fair number of judges.

Jonathan @ 14.4 had three suggestions, which would be perhaps a start, but I would like to see Judges face the possibility of litigation - in the same way that the Medical profession faces it already! A judge has access to all the papers - and therefore the previous history of a murderer, or a killer in death by dangerous driving, he should be in a position to be able to assess whether this individual is more or less likely to repeat the same offence again, and if he doesn't consider he should have to do this assessment, then he should employ some Psychiatrists to advise him. Nothing like a bit of possible litigation to rein in the sense of omnipotence of some judges.

And I absolutely agree with Serf about 'learning Italian', it is not a difficult language to learn.

[Stand Up Throw Up]

Spot on John Moss...I think.

The only additional qualification I would make is that he was 15 at the time of his foul, brutal and inexcusable attack on Philip Lawrence...does that not make him a child in the eyes of the law? If so does that not demand a different regime to that afforded to adults now that he has "served his time"?

Pace Thomson/Venables in the Bulger case.

I would be interested to know.

[Yet Another Anon]

A judge has access to all the papers - and therefore the previous history of a murderer, or a killer in death by dangerous driving, he should be in a position to be able to assess whether this individual is more or less likely to repeat the same offence again, and if he doesn't consider he should have to do this assessment, then he should employ some Psychiatrists to advise him.
If murder incurred a mandatory punishment of death and if as psychiatrist Thomas Szasz has suggested, the insanity plea should be abolished, using the excuse of mental illness people can avoid punishment or even avoid being tried and this shoudl cease to be the case. In addition if people do not turn up for their trial then they should be tried and sentenced in absentia.

[The Huntsman]

I am sorry this is a bit long, but I feel that the Chindamo case seems to be creating a lot of heat and smoke but not much light. It certainly seems to have brought some good old fashioned backwoodsmen out of the forest. I hope, however, that fellow contributors will appreciate a more measured look at this issue.

Hard cases, it is said, make bad law. In the absence of a copy of the judgement in the Chindamo case and an intimate look at the basis in law upon which this murderer’s appeal has been allowed, it is very unwise to rush to judgement on the case. One is reinforced by this, if it needs reinforcing as a matter of general principle, by some observations said to emanate out of Jack Straw’s Ministry of Justice (how I hate that name with its banana republic connotations) to the effect that it may not be the Human Rights Act 2000 which is at fault but some other piece of European legislation. Whilst that may be no more than an attempt to deflect mortar fire being directed at the much-criticised Human Rights Act, it is wise to await sight of the full reasoning of the Appeals Tribunal before coming to any specific conclusion on the case. If it is down to some piece of EU legislation, Straw and the Labour Government cannot, however, win: that will simply be the signal for the mortars to be re-ranged and for fire to be directed instead at the EU and the way in which we have lost control of the right to legislate for the safety of our people and of our nation.

Whatever turns out to be the case, I have gone back today to the text of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which is now 57 years old. I have considerable familiarity with it because the Statutes of the two International Criminal Tribunals, for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR), both deriving much of their language from the ECHR and I have worked as defence counsel at both.

My general observation is that the world in which the ECHR was drafted has changed very considerably in the meantime. In some respects it has been overtaken by other Treaties, an example being Article 3 of the ECHR being superseded by the 1985 Torture Convention, and by the development of a large body of international humanitarian law and jurisprudence at the ICTY and ICTR as well as significant social changes which have brought legislative developments in their wake: I am thinking, as an example, of Article 14 which deals with discrimination, an area of law which has undergone huge development in the past 57 years. Other Articles might have similar observations made of them.

The second observation I have is that the Convention was the product of a body of 14 nations then members of the Council of Europe of which only the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland were common law jurisdictions. As a result the document has a very Civil Law feel to it. One of the striking features of the jurisprudence of the ICTY and ICTR is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to bolt the Civil Law on to the Common Law and vice-versa. One of the problems that I believe we have got into with the ECHR being incorporated into English Law is that it has now found itself the object of intense scrutiny by lawyers and judges who are most adept at finding out its flaws, a process that it has never really experienced in the much more civil law environment of the European Court of Human Rights.

But that is how our law is arrived at: a constant process of evolutionary legislation and interpretation. And before you all reach for your pens or keyboards and opine that we had best, in those circumstances, swap over to a more civil law based approach to this, let me say straight away that that would be madness for, having seen both systems at work, I am absolutely convinced that the Common Law is outstandingly the better system, better able to adapt and evolve as society and the law evolves than the much more rigid and straitjacketed Civil law.

My conclusion is this. There is a perfectly rational case for saying that we should have a new British Bill of Rights. This would be a document which is carefully drafted to be consonant with British Law, with appropriate amendments for the laws of Scotland and of Northern Ireland. It would be drafted to take account of all the developments in society and the law since 1950.

For example, it should in particular aim to establish a much better balance between the rights of victims of crime and the means by which the victim is placed in the forefront of our human rights law and the rights of offenders, some of which are also, in a civilized society, very important, such as the fair trial provisions. There can be a much better set of provisions to reflect the great changes British society has undergone since 1950.

At the same time we should aim to produce a far better document than the ECHR so that when we withdraw from the ECHR, as we shall have to do, we can properly point to a much finer piece of legislation than the one from which we have withdrawn: in this way we can show a clean pair of heels to the Europeans and demonstrate that we are more modern and more progressive than they in this field.

There are many political points to be scored against Labour for the way in which they have handled the incorporation of the ECHR into our law and how they have responded to its very considerable imperfections. But human rights as a concept are most important in a civilized society and we must not let the important task of biffing Labour to conflict with the task of getting ourselves a first-class Bill of Rights of our own.

As matter of curiosity I would also suggest that people read our 1689 Bill of Rights and also the US Constitution and US Bill of Rights which are its grand-children to see how some of the concepts therein are actually still very relevant and very modern and how they were the forerunners of such Conventions as the ECHR. You will be surprised just how far we in the Common Law world were ahead of the game. We can be again.

For a great documents site see http://tinyurl.com/2yzw9

[ThatcherBoy]

The Conservative Party position seems to be as follows:

1. Parliament should repeal the 1998 Human Rights Act

2. The UK should remain a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

3. The UK should not seek to reform the ECHR or insert any reservations into the conditions of the UK’s continued membership

4. Parliament should devise a new codified British Bill of Rights that will be a constitutional doctrine, binding on future Parliaments

5. The Conservative Party should establish a committee of lawyers, jurists and constitutional experts to devise a draft Bill of Rights in Opposition.

Therefore, Cameron is simply restating existing Conservative Party policy that:

1. Does not advocate the status quo – i.e. no repeal of the HRA and continued membership of the ECHR.

2. Does seek the abolition of the HRA to be substituted by a British Bill of Rights.

3. Does not desire the UK’s membership of the ECHR to be terminated, now or in the future.

"Cameron's announcement is rubbish" at 13:21 was correct to highlight the ECHR problem.

In a draft submission to the Joint Committee on Human Rights (32nd report of session 2005-06), Douglas Carswell argued for the abolition of the Human Rights Act AND the UK’s complete withdrawal from the ECHR.

He advocated in its place a British Bill of Rights that could make explicit some basic rights unique to our heritage, like a right to jury trial (which the ECHR – applied across numerous post-war European jurisdictions – does not guarantee incidentally), but which would exclude elements of human rights law that have undermined our ability to fight crime and terrorism.

Unlike the current Conservative Party position to abolish the 1998 Human Rights Act BUT REMAIN a member of the ECHR, Carswell’s plan for a new British Bill of Rights would be a substitute for – not a supplement to – the ECHR itself.

The Conservative position appears to value too highly the benefits the ECHR has brought in terms of access and public benefit since it was incorporated in 2000, and places unwarranted faith in the future decisions of the judiciary to defer as a matter of course (as per the tendency in Germany) to the domestic constitutional doctrine (in this case a new indigenous Bill of Rights). If we remain ECHR signatories, what is to stop them continuing to cite ECHR case law, as has become their habit?

Carswell’s proposal is intellectually more coherent therefore, as it would take the UK out of the convention and remove completely the ECHR point of reference for the judiciary in future, as well as any ending any risk of further “creeping incorporation” (which Liberty and others admit privately has already happened to a significant extent - which they of course welcome).

A British Bill of Rights might be a good idea - but if we have one, we don't need to remain members of the ECHR, unless we want a codified British BoR to be fatally undermined by continued membership of the ECHR.

[TomTom]

Yes the 1689 Bill of Rights gave me the right to bear arms but someone took it away. Thus a "Bill of Rights" is not really protected from legislative amendment.

The ECHR was put together as part of the Cold War propaganda to show the Soviet Occupied Countries what they were missing - that is why it was broad-brush and Britain did not even let it register domestically.

Had they been so keen they would have drafted a British "Bill of Rights" and anchored it with referendum, but it was never intended to be more than a propaganda ploy for external consumption

Germany drafted a Grundgesetz instead of a Constitution - since everything was provisional until the zones were reunited as one country - and it conformed to the thrust of the ECHR so it had few conflicts if any, and Karlsruhe insisted on German law taking precedence most of the time. Plus which some of Germany's Supreme Court Judges are former University Professors anyway and have international experience.

The British system is very narrow but with wide interpretative scope and a politicised Bench trying to play games with what they as reflex see as State Power.

The legal system has moved away from principles to see itself as therapeutic towards the individual rather than the sustenance and protection of the society and realm

[Tanfield]

It is a condition of membership of the EU that the UK sign up to ECHR. Scrapping the HRA will not affect the application of ECHR in the UK. Only by leaving the EU can we get out of ECHR completely. That is the long and the short of the matter and David Cameron should not imply that a British Bill of Rights would override the ECHR . Only if we have left EU first can we be free of ECHR completely.

[cameron's announcement is rubbish]

ThatcherBoy at 17:46 is quite right.

People have to understand that the Party is NOT pledging to withdraw from the ECHR and therefore any Bill they bring to amend/replace the HRA wd STILL be subject to the ECHR court in Strasbourg so even after the whole palaver of a new "British Bill of Rights" the ECHR could just say, "Get Lost - do what we say (pay compensation to terrorists, let criminals go etc)".

Until you lot digest this fact, the Party's position on this as so many things will continue to be an utter farce.

You will no doubt notice in coming days and months that David Davis ignores this point because he is more interested in being friends with the terrorist-supporting Liberty than protecting British citizens.

No doubt the useless hacks at Torygraph will ignore / not realise too.

Note as well this - the Conservative Party has far closer links with terrorist-supporting Liberty than it ever did with the anti-euro campaign!

Until the Party has a fundamental change of mind on this - and the incompetent Davis plus sidekick Grieve are booted out - the Tories cannot be trusted with national security...

And that's the memo.

[The Huntsman]

I agree that if we have a new, distinctive British Bill of Rights, that would have to be accompanied by a withdrawal from the ECHR, which will bring much nonsense bleating from the BBC and others. It should be ignored.

The other danger to this is that if we ever make the very major mistake of allowing the EU to have any power of any kind over 'justice' policy (which covers in EUspeak almost anything you care to think of)the EU will do its best to drag us back into the ECHR on the grounds of harmonisation or whatever rubbish the spiel is for today.

Thatcherboy's post tidies up nicely the politics of this issue.

The idea that we can have a UK BoR and remain in the Convention is as lacking in credibility as the policy of repatriating powers from the EU is.

The only way of getting a UK BoR is the exclusively British way.

Dominic Grieve is supposed to be a bright button: why doesn't he point out that which is actually pretty straightforward?

[Richard]

If we're going to have a British Bill of Rights wouldn't the best idea be to model it on the US Bill of Rights?

[Disraeli]

Call me old fashioned but I am still to be persuaded of the need for a codified Bill of Rights, whether it be British or European. SUrely all such a document would do (as the Human Rights Act has done) is take power away from elected, accountable, removable individuals and give it to judges and lawyers who are not elected, cannot be removed and tend to come from a narrow social elite.

[Alex Swanson]

If we're going to have a British Bill of Rights wouldn't the best idea be to model it on the US Bill of Rights?

In fact I think you'll find that the US Bill of Rights was modelled on the English 1689 version (albeit with lots of improvements) so that would be to come full circle.

However, it'll never happen. The US Bill of Rights explicitly exists to prevent abuse of power by government. I sadly have come to believe that there is not a senior politician in the country, in any party, who would countenance such a thing here - after all, the few safeguards we do have, such as the power to impeach, or as I have already mentioned the right to bear arms, which exists explicitly in both Bills in order to allow an armed citizenry to resist unjust government - have been quietly whittled away over many years by exactly the kind of people who would now have to turn round and set up a system designed to tie their own hands.

As an aside, I might point out that the early release of Northern Irish terrorists from jail was actually against international law - it constitutes political interference in the verdicts of courts and is hence contrary to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. How many politicians or journalists have you ever heard acknowledge this, let alone protest?

[Ash Faulkner]

Firstly, I'd just like to say that I completely agree with The Huntsman (16:20) re: Common Law vs Civil Law.

Secondly, what is all this talk of a bill of rights? Are we thinking along the lines of a bill of rights, or a Bill of Rights? Because the former is surely just a modified sort of HRA; whereas the latter would have serious implications for, well, everything. I'm rather confused by the terminology.

[Yet Another Anon]

Only by leaving the EU can we get out of ECHR completely.
Actually only by renouncing the convention and leaving the ECHR can the UK get out of it completely, no one is sure how this would affect a member states membership of the EU, but if the UK were to leave the EU it would still have to renounce the ECHR as well as abolishing or amending the Human Rights Act in order to be free from restrictions under the convention. The Human Rights Act implements a more stringent form of the convention, the Convention is still applicable so long as the UK remains a signatory even if the HRA is abolished.

It would be more a matter of other member states in the EU objecting to the UK leaving those conventions, most would probably argue that it made a mockery of requirements on those applying to join to be a member of such conventions before joining, the UK is already a member though - indeed it might lead to a sort of revolt among many of the more recent European nations against membership of the conventions, and of Russia too.

Either the UK could stay in the EU having done such a thing or leave, and the most that the EU could do to the UK if the UK decided to stay would be to agree to suspend membership or expel the UK.

Certainly the UK government doing such a thing could say that such changes in no way affected the rest of the EU in the way that for example trade, taxation or immigration changes might.

[Yet Another Anon]

I was listening to a debate on this earlier and it was pointed out that a new Bill of Rights while it abolished lots of existing things for lawyers to play with with undoubtedly introduce a whole lot more.

The EU and US both suffer as a result of constantly having to refer back to their written constitutions and especially in the EU the amount of constitutional documents seem to be building up at a rapid rate - why should the UK seek to replicate these flaws in their systems that remove the flexibility when it comes to dealing with new issues that may pop up.

[Bruce Mackie]

Just what we have been calling for and David Cameron has just voiced what millions of people in the UK have been expressing for years.Now this sort of thing should see us overtake the Labour and burst the Brown Bubble.The bonus is that Cherie will have no legislation to back up her socialist ideas.

[Traditional Tory]

The best way to have dealt with the murderous lowlife Chindamo would have been to drop him through a trap with a noose around his neck.

Possibly 'Dave' may eventually come round to that commonsense view, but I wouldn't count on it.

[cameron's operation is a farce]

As predicted, Cameron has now followed up the NHS screw up with an even worse blunder. He's tried to jump on the bandwagon with the Torygraph and as predicted above in the comments making the fatuous claim about repealing the HRA.

a) This does no good because people will still go to Strasbourg unless he also withdraws from the ECHR WHICH HE IS NOT SAYING HE WILL DO.

b) the crucial aspect of the judgement was actually AN EU DIRECTIVE!

the tory party operation is a contemptible joke. they make these same mistakes on EU/ECHR about twice a year, year in year out, they never learn. Cameron and Davis are unfit for office.

[TOmTom]

a) This does no good because people will still go to Strasbourg unless he also withdraws from the ECHR WHICH HE IS NOT SAYING HE WILL DO.

The backlog on cases in the British Section at Strasbourg is currently 40,000 I believe. The difference between The High Court implementing the ECHR through the HRA and appealing to Strasbourg after all domestic appeals have been exhausted is that patience is needed for the 4-6 year wait.

Further the ECHR Rulings do not overturn UK judgments as such but the Council of Europe Treaty requires the Council of Ministers to implement the decisions.

We have the farcical situation where many ECHR cases have not been defended because the British Government wanted an ECHR ruling to show it hhad no choice viz. but to allow gays in the military. In fact Labour's 1997 Manifesto said it would not defend a case brought in Strasbourg

[Traditional Tory]

Much as I actually agree with Cameron on scrapping the HRA I'm not sure that will play well with Joe Public.

My wife just took one look at the Telegraph headline 'Cameron: Scrap the Human Rights Act' and said 'That sounds terrible. He's against human rights'.

And that's exactly how many people will read it.

[James Maskell]

I thought the sticking point in the Chimdamo case was an EU directive and not the HRA?

[Edward]

To those who say we haven't come up with what the BBR would do: take a look on the Conservative Lawyers website for a fantastic report and review of this.

[A.T.]

Tory T at 13:28

So it's Conservative policy, and Cameron is PM, so why is he "repeating a call to scrap" it. Why isn't he just doing it ? Sorry, but the instinctive reaction (rightly or wrongly) has to be that it's posturing. Again.