6 ms·

Small point of information: the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution and so will remain available to UK citizens after Brexit.

by derriz 10y ago

mtgx 10y ago
He probably confused it with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
kitd 10y ago
You are technically correct, but the ruling Conservatives have stated they intend to withdraw anyway after Brexit.
- r3bl 10y ago
  To withdraw from what? Council of Europe? Nobody ever claimed that. In fact, that's the very exact Council that the UK had to notify about its intention to leave the EU. EDIT: Theresa May did claim that her campaign in 2020 would focus on that. So, they're not leaving it for three years at least.
  - noir_lord 10y ago
    > Theresa May did claim that her campaign in 2020 would focus on that. So, they're not leaving it for three years at least. Won't be a campaign in 2020 since she announced a snap election a few weeks ago for June 8th, next likely election is then 2021 unless she just votes her self Leader for Life or something in the interim.
    - r3bl 10y ago
      I am aware of that, I just tried to correct my statement that "nobody claimed that" which I made before the edit. The second sentence in my edit was kind of unnecessary though.
  - Tomte 10y ago
    They notified the European Council, not the Council of Europe. Similar name, big difference. Even more fun: there is also the Council of the European Union.
frobozz 10y ago
True, but Mrs. May is not a fan of the Convention or the Court. Scrapping it is not directly tied to Brexit, but it's still related, if only by being an international agreement with the word "European" in it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-campaign-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-2020-general-election-brexit-a7499951.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-ca...
- HalfwayToDice 10y ago
  Do you have a credible news source, or just The Independent?
  - developerdanny 10y ago
    Since when was the independent not a credible news source? Genuine question.
    - krona 10y ago
      Given the headline mentions a 2020 election, I think it's fair to question the reliability of the article itself.
      - nounaut 10y ago
        The election was supposed to happen in 2020 when this article was written.
    - losvedir 10y ago
      Oh, is it considered credible? Not being in the UK I don't have a sense of this, but I had gradually built up a perception over the last couple months that it was a sort of click-bait, mediocre source like, maybe, HuffPo or BuzzFeed. I put it somewhere above Daily Mail but below BBC or The Guardian. I started forming this opinion on an article that re-hashed the story of Flynn being fired, but in such a poorly edited way with so much bluster that I literally couldn't understand what the actual facts were it was trying to convey. Fortunately, the article linked to the WaPo story it was based on, and I was able to understand from there. I wish I could find that story now, but unfortunately I couldn't. But I found this one in my browser history, which I think shows the issues I have with it: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-russia-investigation-now-has-specific-concrete-and-corroborative-evidence-of-collusion-a7683386.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-russi... The headline is big and blustery, which is why I associate it with clickbait. Then the first paragraph explains: "it has been reported". That is, the Independent isn't doing the primary research itself; it finds other articles and amplifies them. There's a bunch of sites that do this and it frustrate me, since the original article usually is a little more nuanced. The whole game here is to pick an article and make it more juicy. Compare the headline of the Guardian article which this one is "amplifying": > British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia. Exclusive: GCHQ is said to have alerted US agencies after becoming aware of contacts in 2015 with the Independent's take on the same story: > 'Concrete evidence of collusion between Trump team and Russia' handed to official investigation. New evidence comes as sources reveal British spy agency GCHQ played pivotal role in uncovering interactions between US President and Russian operatives It's the same story. The first paragraph of the Independent article uses the "has been reported" phrasing, and the second links to the Guardian article it's based on. On top of that, the Independent article itself has boneheaded phrasing like: > "a source allegedly told the Guardian." The underlying Guardian article talks about "alleged conversations", but now we get to the Independent, and now on top of that we have "alleged sources"! How far away are we from what really happened here? I mean, I guess I'm glad they're not saying "a source told The Guardian" since they don't really have proof of that, but that's a weird thing to be strict about, and really just indicates how worthless this 2nd hand reporting style is anyway. So I basically ignore the Independent now whenever I see it come up. I didn't realize they were supposed to be one of the "good" ones.
r3bl 10y ago
Exactly. ECHR has nothing to do with the EU, but with the Council of Europe. Council of Europe includes (almost) the entire Europe (with Belarus and disputed Kosovo currently being the only countries which are not a part of it).
- type0 10y ago
  > with Belarus and disputed Kosovo currently being the only countries which are not a part of it). should we expect Britain to join them soon?! Imagine one day Belarus will be more democratic than UK. It's incorrect to say that Britain doesn't have a constitution, they have one, it's non-official manual, you know the one that bears title of a year 33 years ago.
  - r3bl 10y ago
    I repeat: Council of Europe has nothing to do with the European Union.

Small point of information: the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution and so will remain available to UK citizens after Brexit.

by derriz 10y ago

Small point of information: the European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution and so will remain available to UK citizens after Brexit.

mtgx 10y ago

He probably confused it with the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

kitd 10y ago

You are technically correct, but the ruling Conservatives have stated they intend to withdraw anyway after Brexit.

r3bl 10y ago
To withdraw from what? Council of Europe? Nobody ever claimed that. In fact, that's the very exact Council that the UK had to notify about its intention to leave the EU. EDIT: Theresa May did claim that her campaign in 2020 would focus on that. So, they're not leaving it for three years at least.
- noir_lord 10y ago
  > Theresa May did claim that her campaign in 2020 would focus on that. So, they're not leaving it for three years at least. Won't be a campaign in 2020 since she announced a snap election a few weeks ago for June 8th, next likely election is then 2021 unless she just votes her self Leader for Life or something in the interim.
  - r3bl 10y ago
    I am aware of that, I just tried to correct my statement that "nobody claimed that" which I made before the edit. The second sentence in my edit was kind of unnecessary though.
- Tomte 10y ago
  They notified the European Council, not the Council of Europe. Similar name, big difference. Even more fun: there is also the Council of the European Union.

frobozz 10y ago

True, but Mrs. May is not a fan of the Convention or the Court. Scrapping it is not directly tied to Brexit, but it's still related, if only by being an international agreement with the word "European" in it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-campaign-leave-european-convention-on-human-rights-2020-general-election-brexit-a7499951.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-ca...

HalfwayToDice 10y ago
Do you have a credible news source, or just The Independent?
- developerdanny 10y ago
  Since when was the independent not a credible news source? Genuine question.
  - krona 10y ago
    Given the headline mentions a 2020 election, I think it's fair to question the reliability of the article itself.
    - nounaut 10y ago
      The election was supposed to happen in 2020 when this article was written.
  - losvedir 10y ago
    Oh, is it considered credible? Not being in the UK I don't have a sense of this, but I had gradually built up a perception over the last couple months that it was a sort of click-bait, mediocre source like, maybe, HuffPo or BuzzFeed. I put it somewhere above Daily Mail but below BBC or The Guardian. I started forming this opinion on an article that re-hashed the story of Flynn being fired, but in such a poorly edited way with so much bluster that I literally couldn't understand what the actual facts were it was trying to convey. Fortunately, the article linked to the WaPo story it was based on, and I was able to understand from there. I wish I could find that story now, but unfortunately I couldn't. But I found this one in my browser history, which I think shows the issues I have with it: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-russia-investigation-now-has-specific-concrete-and-corroborative-evidence-of-collusion-a7683386.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-russi... The headline is big and blustery, which is why I associate it with clickbait. Then the first paragraph explains: "it has been reported". That is, the Independent isn't doing the primary research itself; it finds other articles and amplifies them. There's a bunch of sites that do this and it frustrate me, since the original article usually is a little more nuanced. The whole game here is to pick an article and make it more juicy. Compare the headline of the Guardian article which this one is "amplifying": > British spies were first to spot Trump team's links with Russia. Exclusive: GCHQ is said to have alerted US agencies after becoming aware of contacts in 2015 with the Independent's take on the same story: > 'Concrete evidence of collusion between Trump team and Russia' handed to official investigation. New evidence comes as sources reveal British spy agency GCHQ played pivotal role in uncovering interactions between US President and Russian operatives It's the same story. The first paragraph of the Independent article uses the "has been reported" phrasing, and the second links to the Guardian article it's based on. On top of that, the Independent article itself has boneheaded phrasing like: > "a source allegedly told the Guardian." The underlying Guardian article talks about "alleged conversations", but now we get to the Independent, and now on top of that we have "alleged sources"! How far away are we from what really happened here? I mean, I guess I'm glad they're not saying "a source told The Guardian" since they don't really have proof of that, but that's a weird thing to be strict about, and really just indicates how worthless this 2nd hand reporting style is anyway. So I basically ignore the Independent now whenever I see it come up. I didn't realize they were supposed to be one of the "good" ones.

r3bl 10y ago

Exactly. ECHR has nothing to do with the EU, but with the Council of Europe. Council of Europe includes (almost) the entire Europe (with Belarus and disputed Kosovo currently being the only countries which are not a part of it).

type0 10y ago
> with Belarus and disputed Kosovo currently being the only countries which are not a part of it). should we expect Britain to join them soon?! Imagine one day Belarus will be more democratic than UK. It's incorrect to say that Britain doesn't have a constitution, they have one, it's non-official manual, you know the one that bears title of a year 33 years ago.
- r3bl 10y ago
  I repeat: Council of Europe has nothing to do with the European Union.