3 ms·
It's the minimum requirement under ECHR. The government does actually have to comply with its legal obligations, this isn't America. They can't choose to just i
by pjc50 25d ago
It's the minimum requirement under ECHR. The government does actually have to comply with its legal obligations, this isn't America. They can't choose to just ignore them.
This is why the problem hasn't been fixed. You can't say "just do X" when X isn't legal. Do you really think nobody's thought of this? That the government actually likes being in this position of the past decade or so?
- philipallstar 25d agoYes indeed, that is the oft-cited fatal flaw of remaining in the ECHR. But that aside: why come to the UK?
- rapsey 25d agoThe ECHR is actually very loose with their definitions and gives the governments much freedom. The UK chooses to interpret and enforce them as they do. Other european countries are within ECHR limits and deal with it entirely differently. The UK elites no longer have the EU to blame for their policies, so they speak about ECHR. On the continent people barely know ECHR exists.
- hn_throw2025 25d agoThe ECHR says you must give prisoners the vote. Successive UK governments chose to ignore that part. So don’t be so sure about “can’t” versus “won’t”.