Clueless

[Suff]

So the establishment believe that the courts will be used, with the human rights legislation; to ensure EU citizens can remain in the UK.

Some people are politically blind, deaf and dumb. Do they not realise that if hundreds of cases go to court over this, then the very first act of the government, post Brexit, will be to repeal the UK act which enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. Which then will be immediately followed by a challenge to strip all EU citizens of the rights conferred by those legal decisions.

If they shut up and let the government and the EU get on with it, the government will, in the end, do the right thing. Unless the EU decides to explicitly expel all UK citizens. Which, of course, could be challenged in the EU courts under the ECHR.

Stupid is as stupid does. They still have not realised where we are going now. They will learn and there will be a lot of tears along the way.

[AliasAggers]

Why don't you send this message to the EXPRESS ?

[Suff]

No, no, this is amusement and sarcasm. When I have something serious to say I send a mail to the office of the Brexit minister.

Quite interesting that really. Chance? Or did I strike a chord such that certain words and phrases changed 2 days after my mail???

[edit]

In some ways I _want_ them to make this mistake. It will make the changeover much faster than might have been before.

[medsec222]

We all have to face life's uncertainties. Why don't they wait and see what happens during the negotiations. Theresa May has already indicated that she wants to protect both EU residents here and UK residents throughout the EU. She should be allowed to get on with her job. The trouble with today's society is that people expect instant answers.

[Suff]

No actually the problem today is that people don't care about anyone else, they just care about themselves. This was highly evident in the UK Expat community here in France who are still furious that they could not vote and try to swing the result to remain. Many of whom have been permanent residents of France for 25 years or more.

Witness what is going on in America right now. Trump is responsible for the safety and protection of the citizens of the US. Some of the said US citizens think that he has no right to do this and some of the courts agree with them.

That approach and attitude has also become endemic in the EU leading to "up yours it's all about what I want" attitudes.

This approach by EU citizens who are living in the UK, trying to use UK courts and EU rules to subvert the government of the UK, is going to come to a sorry end and is going to harden attitudes a lot.

Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned there for everyone?

[Workingman]

Oh FCOL!

The legal eagles have given an informal opinion on the rights of EU citizens, including those from the UK, to challenge any decisions affecting them in any signatory state of the ECHR.

And for the n millionth time, the ECHR has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. It is separate and was established long before even the EEC (Common Market) came into being. Of all pan European groupings it is by far the largest and includes Turkey and Russia. The only places not signatories are Belarus, Kosovo and Ossetia.

The only reason it has cropped up is because the UK has proposed a "cut-off" after after which new EU entrants will not be able to apply for residency. This is largely to stop floods of people from poorer EU states and is bang in line with what the Leave campaign majored on.

This is another on a growing list of things that should have been ironed out before the referendum took place rather than us making it up as we drift along.

The only good thing in all of this, if that is a reasonable way to describe it, is that expat UK citizens in the EU will also be able to approach the ECHR for protection if it is needed, as it could be.

[Suff]

One such principle is respect for fundamental rights, seen in Article 6(2) of the Treaty Establishing the European Union (Maastricht Treaty): "The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

Until Blair, the UK had an opt out from Article 6(2) of the Maastricht treaty. The Lisbon Treaty also further enshrined the EHCR with rights to rule on the EU member states.

So the ECHR _IS_ to do with this and the UK legislation granting Article 6(2) of the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty, confer those rights of the ECHR onto the UK.

Once we withdraw from the treaties and repeal the UK legislation which enact them in UK law, then the UK is free to either observe or ignore the judgements of the ECHR.

_That_ is why I want this farce to play out fully. So that the people of the UK realise that only when the government of the UK is in full control of the UK and only when idiotic nonsense like the ECHR judgements are voided in the UK, will the UK be fully free of EU influence and able to make UK decisions which make sense for the majority of UK citizens.

As for the rest of the EU? The UK citizens residing in their countries will be able to approach the ECHR to make sure their "uman wights" are not abused.

[Workingman]

Maastricht and Lisbon might well have forced the EU (the organisation itself) to respect fundamental rights, but that is because it is not a signatory to the ECHR even thought the individual countries within the EU are, as are those of EFTA and all the other countries of Europe (the continent) except Belarus, Kosovo and Ossetia - though the last two are not technically countries. The rules mean that new members of the EU have to be members of ECHR.

So the ECHR _IS_ to do with this and the UK legislation granting Article 6(2) of the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty, confer those rights of the ECHR onto the UK.

Wrong. The UK is a signatory to the ECHR in its own right and independent of the EU, but see above.

Once we withdraw from the treaties and repeal the UK legislation which enact them in UK law, then the UK is free to either observe or ignore the judgements of the ECHR.

Wrong again. As a signatory to the ECHR in its own right the UK has to abide by its judgements. The only way to end that is for the UK to officially withdraw from the ECHR and the choice to, or not to, do that has nothing to do with the EU. Simply leaving the EU does not do it.

[Suff]

So the fact that we can't withdraw from the ECHR or decide whether we are going to abide by those decisions or not, due to our EU treaties which bind us to them, over and above our membership, is not relevant then?

We can't decide to break membership with the ECHR until we leave the EU. That to me makes it a valid issue to be raised.

[Workingman]

We can withdraw from the ECHR even whilst we are still a (temporary) member of the EU, and we can also cease to be members of it (the Council of Europe) at any time - much the same thing. There would no doubt be legal questions raised, and it might be an unwise path to take vis-à-vis Brexit negotiations , but both remain a possibility. However, if the UK applied to rejoin the EU then it would have to sign up to the ECHR in order to get back in - Maastricht and Lisbon say so.

The Council of Europe was established with the signing of the Treaty of London in 1949, following discussions and negotiations on its make up since the end of WWII. The UK, along with nine others, was one of its founder members. It is an internationally recognised independent body whose core beliefs are: Human Rights; Democracy; and the Rule of Law. It has nothing, zilch, nada to do with the EU.

EU treaties can be spun any which way but the fact remains that they have no influence on the UK's membership of the Council of Europe or its adoption of that organisations European Convention on Human Rights and adherence to the judgements of its European Court of Human Rights. And post Brexit we can do what the hell we like regarding them, unhindered by legal niceties or diplomatic considerations.