Rwanda theft farce: Boris told by ministers to give up jurisdiction of foreign courts | Politics | New has received a briefing from a senior minister which shows there is now pressure within the Cabinet to end the rule of the European Court of Human Rights once and for all ( ECHR) after a series of “blatant” decisions on illegal cases. immigrants, gypsy travelers, prisoners and other regions. The Prime Minister has been warned that the only way to stop ECHR decisions is to cut ties with it completely.

The row erupted after the first flight to Rwanda was grounded in an ECHR ruling in which the judge did not even hear oral evidence.

The Strasbourg-based overseas court overturned UK courts, including the Supreme Court, which had rejected attempts by left-wing activist lawyers to frustrate Home Secretary Priti Patel’s new policy to end the flow of illegal migrants brought by human traffickers in small boats across the English Channel. .

Today ministers and Tory backbenchers are telling the Prime Minister he must ‘complete Brexit’ and get Britain out of the ECHR.

A very senior minister told “The only way to remove us from the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court is to withdraw.

“Large swathes of our lives are ruled by ECHR law – and in the wrong way: asylum and migration are the most important, but also gypsies/travellers, parole board decisions and sentencing. life, NI legacy issues, military protections, protest rights, Colston statue case – they used the ECHR to get themselves off the hook I could go on.

” It’s horrible. It is an undemocratic political, interventionist and Euro-trash institution. All the bad things about the EU more, more more!”

The minister added: “Boris has to go. Politics is on his side in my opinion.

“We couldn’t have hoped for a more egregious example of a horrific court. This is the best withdrawal ad ever. Better than any argument any politician can make.

Meanwhile, the mighty no-nonsense group of Tory MPs are pushing to end the jurisdiction of the ECHR and for an overhaul of human rights law.

Friends of Sir, the group’s chairman, Sir John Hayes, pointed out that had the government accepted his ‘notwithstanding’ technical amendment to the Borders Bill, the ECHR would not have been able to rule on the Rwanda case .

But at the time it is understood Ms Patel did not think she could get it through Parliament because ‘she was fighting on too many fronts with the Lords and her own department’. [the Home Office].”

READ MORE: Macron’s delusional attempt to bring the UK back into the EU via a backdoor has been lambasted

Meanwhile, Sir John said Mr Johnson was ‘seizing the moment’.

He said: “Boris needs to understand that this is Brexit 2. He has a tremendous chance to unite the Red Wall and mainstream Tories by ending the jurisdiction of the ECHR and properly reforming the law on human rights.

“It will put Partygate behind it and it will be a real Conservative move that will be hugely popular and even more important in regaining control of our own laws.”

It is understood the group hopes to meet the Prime Minister to advocate for swift action.

The ECHR is not part of the European Union and derives its authority from the European Convention on Human Rights which was originally drafted by British lawyers.

But the government is already divided on what to do.

It is understood Justice Secretary Dominic Raab, who is tasked with reforming the Human Rights Act, is seeking a lighter reform that would simply prioritize the UK courts.

But Attorney General Suella Braverman and Ms Patel would like a more sweeping overhaul, backed by many Conservative backbenchers, including removing the ECHR altogether.


Brexit in peril at the hands of Starmer – FOUR reasons to fear an EU plot [INSIGHT]

Macron’s delusional attempt to bring the UK back into the EU via a backdoor has been lambasted [REVEAL]

Have your say: Does Boris care about Brexit? ‘Lame duck’ [REACT]

A minister, Guy Opperman, who is currently in charge of pensions but who as a lawyer once defended former Labor education secretary Ed Balls against an ECHR case, has spoken out against the exit of the ECHR today.

He told Times Radio: “I don’t believe that’s our policy, nor would it be something I would advocate for withdrawing from the ECHR.

“I think the situation is that, as I understand it, the UK courts have primacy on this issue, but if I understand the ECHR ruling last night correctly, a decision was made that everything had not been taken into account by the British courts under these conditions.”

He added: “It is not necessarily a final prevention that took place last night. It is a temporary delay while the issues are considered in more detail by the UK courts.

“And I think that’s the bottom line, that the ECHR basically said that more time was needed to consider the claims at issue and that the UK courts should do that.

Comments are closed.