It's once again been/being framed in terms of "making policy acceptable to the public", which I suspect remains a fool's errand. That said, I'd be interested to see whether the ECtHR *themselves* treat Article 8 in a radically different way, or whether other signatories are just making a lot of noise.
Although we were original subscribers to the ECHR, it was the enthusiastic drafting of the HRA 1998 that set the scene for our current ‘problems’. I was a national trainer and the view was very much that we would show other less observant states how to fully embrace human rights.
It is the HRA that needs amending, if we want to dilute our duties. That, of course, does not require any involvement by other signatories.
As the UK was one of the architects of the ECHR and also a major proponent of the international rules based system, is there not an obligation to be at the maximalist end of the spectrum?
I find it fascinating when the narrative begins to shift, in times of political-or perhaps I mean partisan- difficulty, from the literal as well as in this case liberal interpretation of the law, conventions and whatever- viewed by so many to be unrealistic and unhelpful- to arguably a much looser and LESS liberal construction that, worryingly, administrations find soothing and even laudable.
Do we in our heart of hearts truly wish to embark on that route? Where might we then be getting to and, once again, might it shimmy towards a dilution of the rule of law towards a more “separation of the powers-lite” future?
Farage as pm would run over that sort of argument with an artic and not even look back to check the mince he's left behind in the road. Call stuff 'lite' if you like, but if you don't want to be ran over (by the democratic electorate, by the way) it's worth considering whether the best in this case might be the enemy of the good.
It's once again been/being framed in terms of "making policy acceptable to the public", which I suspect remains a fool's errand. That said, I'd be interested to see whether the ECtHR *themselves* treat Article 8 in a radically different way, or whether other signatories are just making a lot of noise.
Although we were original subscribers to the ECHR, it was the enthusiastic drafting of the HRA 1998 that set the scene for our current ‘problems’. I was a national trainer and the view was very much that we would show other less observant states how to fully embrace human rights.
It is the HRA that needs amending, if we want to dilute our duties. That, of course, does not require any involvement by other signatories.
As the UK was one of the architects of the ECHR and also a major proponent of the international rules based system, is there not an obligation to be at the maximalist end of the spectrum?
Hmm……And so, step forward, “Article-8 - lite”.
I find it fascinating when the narrative begins to shift, in times of political-or perhaps I mean partisan- difficulty, from the literal as well as in this case liberal interpretation of the law, conventions and whatever- viewed by so many to be unrealistic and unhelpful- to arguably a much looser and LESS liberal construction that, worryingly, administrations find soothing and even laudable.
Do we in our heart of hearts truly wish to embark on that route? Where might we then be getting to and, once again, might it shimmy towards a dilution of the rule of law towards a more “separation of the powers-lite” future?
Farage as pm would run over that sort of argument with an artic and not even look back to check the mince he's left behind in the road. Call stuff 'lite' if you like, but if you don't want to be ran over (by the democratic electorate, by the way) it's worth considering whether the best in this case might be the enemy of the good.