(June 25, 2016 at 11:38 am)madog Wrote:(June 25, 2016 at 11:32 am)Homeless Nutter Wrote: Yeah, thanks. What exactly is that supposed to prove? I'm not denying Turkey would like to be a member, but there are no indications that it will become one in foreseeable future.
Err ... Turkey has been an associate member since 1963, they have to fulfill a certain 72 requirements, they have presently satisfied 65 ... Neither you or I can state whether they will be a member, but they are certainly in line
(June 25, 2016 at 11:38 am)Emjay Wrote: But wasn't it part of the Brexit campaign to get rid of the ECHR? And replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights? How does that fit into this?
The UK introduced the UK Human rights act in 1998 which is exactly the same as the ECHR, and relies on case-law of the Court of Human Rights ... it was only introduced for convenience so violations could be dealt with in the UK courts to cut down the waiting time and inconvenience in going to Strasbourg ... But even if a violation failed in the UK Courts it can still go to the ECHR ...
A lot of bull is spread by politicians, the UK will never leave the ECHR ....
Okay, thanks for the info... it makes a lot more sense how it all fits together... the Council of Europe is separate from the EU, and it is the Council of Europe that is responsible for the ECHR. And you're saying that the EU itself is not bound by the ECHR and is only as good as the values of its members... so if right-wing countries join they can influence policy which is then not accountable to the ECHR? But I think abaris says, everyone has to vote (?unanimously) on it for anything to pass, so shouldn't that be a safeguard?
