What is the ECHR, why are there calls for Britain to leave it – and would it help the migrant crisis?

The British membership of the British Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has been increasingly questioned in recent years due to the increase in illegal concerns about illegal migration.

However, the issue, protests in the UK, erupted, as a result of the anger of the number of asylum seekers in the UK hotels in August.

Here, Independent He examines what the ECHR is, why some people think we should leave, and why others can bring more problems than the separation solve.

What is ECHR?

The ECHR is an international Human Rights Treaty between 47 states of the Council of Europe (COE).

The governments enrolled in the ECHR have made a legal commitment to comply with certain standards of behavior and to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of people. It aims to maintain the rule of law in European countries and to promote democracy.

The concept of the ECHR was designed in the early 1940s during the Second World War, and it was developed to enable governments to fulfill the promise of ‘never again’, since governments will never allow human rights to accept and abuse human rights again.

After the ECHR entered into force in 1953, the European Court of Human Rights was later established to protect the ECHR. The court’s decisions legally attributes countries to their decisions.

Why was he criticized?

The critics of the Convention argue that Britain limits primarily the ability to control their laws and policies on migration and national security.

For example, it was the ECHR, which contributed to the failure of the previous government’s besieged Rwanda program, and a series of precautionary measures that prevented the departure of the aircraft.

As a result, increasing calls were made to stop the contract or suspend the contract, including the reform leader Nigel Farage. Meanwhile, the former workers’ house secretary, Jack Straw called on British British laws from the ECHR to “distinguish”.

Straw, who helped the draft of the 1998 Human Rights Law, which includes the ECHR in the UK laws, said that the legislation was abused by the British courts to prevent ministers from deporting illegal immigrants.

Lord Blunkett, who served as the Secretary of the Interior in a previous Workers’ Government, urged the Prime Minister to suspend the contract to deport the asylum seeker rejected in hotels.

Why can quit the contract create more problems than it has solved?

Leaving the ECHR will require the approval of parliament to abolish the 1998 Human Rights Law, which includes Aibr rights in the UK laws.

However, such a move will also violate the good Friday agreement – the 1998 peace agreement in Northern Ireland, which ended the clashes that lasted decades, because it guarantees the applicability of the contract in Northern Ireland.

There is a fear that such a movement will weaken the international stance of England, and Downing Street says England will put England in the same camp as Russia and Belarus.

Dominic Grieve, the European Movement England and former Chief Public Prosecutor, said that leaving the ECHR to Independent would lead to a “all political problem ..

“The good Friday agreement will solve the agreement, the revolution will not destroy our settlements and to collapse our security and trade agreement with the EU – weakening data sharing, return and policing cooperation that keeps us safe,” he said.

Meanwhile, Kolbassia Haoussou, from the freedom of torture, said that leaving the ECHR would be a güzel a gift to oppressive regimes ve and that Britain would leave one of the “most obvious moral lines of humanity ..

A human rights lawyer Adam Wagner KC said Mr. Farage’s plans to leave the ECHR to solve the immigrant crisis were both “legally extreme” and misleading.

“Most of the rights in the European Convention come from the British Joint Law: the right to fair trial, freedom of religion and the right to torture,” he said. Guardian.

There are also concerns that taking the ECHR from the British laws will not actually facilitate deportation from England.

BBC Radio 4’s Human Rights Attorney Philippe Sands, who spoke to the program today on Friday, said that he wouldn’t “make much difference”.

“Somehow it is ridiculous that the European Convention on Human Rights or the Human Rights Law or other governments of the British government or other governments have made reasonable, proportional and logical measures.

The authority added that the European Convention on Human Rights is largely implemented in a wider and international field of British common law principles ”.

However, former Toray Foreign Minister Sir Malcolm Rifint, who emerged to support quit the congress this week, said that he objected to the ECHR, which prevented both the current government and the previous one from taking action to reduce migration.

He said that the release of the contract would reduce the length of the current appeal process – but he asked which cases in the ECHR stopped the legislation of the British government that he wanted to take.