7 ms·

This happens on the first day that UK is no EU member anymore. Is this somehow connected?

Tomte 6y ago
Look at the calendar. January 31st is almost a year behind us. Even the transition period ended multiple days ago.
vidarh 6y ago
No. The discussions in the judgement are all focused on UK law, and the ECHR as embedded in UK law, and UK membership of the ECHR remains (it's not an EU organ, but related to the Council of Europe, which while confusingly similar to EU's European Council has nothing to do with the EU).
rsynnott 6y ago
No. If anything, this is more down to the Human Rights Act (the UK implementation of the ECHR). Some particularly extreme Brexiters have advocated revoking the Human Rights Act (as a member of the EU the UK was required to actually implement the ECHR, but as a non-member it could just pay lip-service, like Russia does), but that hasn't happened as yet (and hopefully never will).
- tomatocracy 6y ago
  I think this is an oversimplification of the political dialogue and interaction of the EU, ECHR and HRA. The passage of the Human Rights Act (which brings Convention rights into domestic law) was not a requirement of EU membership and we could have repealed it while still an EU member (this would be separate from leaving the ECHR itself). Moreover, reducing the impact of the convention and repealing/"reforming" the HRA was most notably proposed in the past by Theresa May as Home Secretary, who campaigned for Remain. I don't think the ECHR/HRA is particularly likely to go away here any time soon. However the government may attempt to reform the way judicial reviews can be brought to limit their impact or remove the ability to bring "last minute" challenges which could have been brought in a more timely way (theoretically this is already supposed to be the case but in practice the politically controversial cases aren't often dismissed for lack of timeliness).
  - richardwhiuk 6y ago
    This is an oversimplification but accurate - I don't think it's credible to stay in the EU while not having the ECHR implemented in statute.
    - tomatocracy 6y ago
      I'm not sure this is true really, as long as a state remained a party to the ECHR itself. The UK didn't incorporate into domestic law until 1998 and RoI (which has a similarly "dualist" legal system of international and domestic law) 2003 - so it was possible to be a member of the EU before 2003 without doing this for sure. Also to add to the confusion, many EU member states have "monist" systems of international and domestic law and never have incorporated via statute because their legal systems allow enforcement of convention rights directly. But in some of these countries the practical effect and applicability of the ECHR is actually less than in the UK via the HRA.

Look at the calendar. January 31st is almost a year behind us. Even the transition period ended multiple days ago.

No. The discussions in the judgement are all focused on UK law, and the ECHR as embedded in UK law, and UK membership of the ECHR remains (it's not an EU organ, but related to the Council of Europe, which while confusingly similar to EU's European Council has nothing to do with the EU).

rsynnott 6y ago

No. If anything, this is more down to the Human Rights Act (the UK implementation of the ECHR). Some particularly extreme Brexiters have advocated revoking the Human Rights Act (as a member of the EU the UK was required to actually implement the ECHR, but as a non-member it could just pay lip-service, like Russia does), but that hasn't happened as yet (and hopefully never will).

tomatocracy 6y ago
I think this is an oversimplification of the political dialogue and interaction of the EU, ECHR and HRA. The passage of the Human Rights Act (which brings Convention rights into domestic law) was not a requirement of EU membership and we could have repealed it while still an EU member (this would be separate from leaving the ECHR itself). Moreover, reducing the impact of the convention and repealing/"reforming" the HRA was most notably proposed in the past by Theresa May as Home Secretary, who campaigned for Remain. I don't think the ECHR/HRA is particularly likely to go away here any time soon. However the government may attempt to reform the way judicial reviews can be brought to limit their impact or remove the ability to bring "last minute" challenges which could have been brought in a more timely way (theoretically this is already supposed to be the case but in practice the politically controversial cases aren't often dismissed for lack of timeliness).
- richardwhiuk 6y ago
  This is an oversimplification but accurate - I don't think it's credible to stay in the EU while not having the ECHR implemented in statute.
  - tomatocracy 6y ago
    I'm not sure this is true really, as long as a state remained a party to the ECHR itself. The UK didn't incorporate into domestic law until 1998 and RoI (which has a similarly "dualist" legal system of international and domestic law) 2003 - so it was possible to be a member of the EU before 2003 without doing this for sure. Also to add to the confusion, many EU member states have "monist" systems of international and domestic law and never have incorporated via statute because their legal systems allow enforcement of convention rights directly. But in some of these countries the practical effect and applicability of the ECHR is actually less than in the UK via the HRA.