ECHR is not a part of the European Union, so Brexit won't take us out of it.

However, I believe that the EU requires members be signatories of the ECHR, so Brexit would make leaving it much easier.

It's well documented that Theresa May wants to leave the ECHR; somewhat alarming since both Russia and Azerbaijan, countries with comparatively poor records on human rights, are signatories.

In fact, as far as I know the only European states that are not part of ECHR and Council of Europe are the Vatican (since they're a theocracy...), Kosovo since it has limited international recognition, Kazakhstan and Belarus over human rights violations.

No European state that'd be eligible has chosen to voluntarily stay outside. Azerbaijan and Russia are the closest to being in trouble of the current members (Russias voting rights were suspended over the annexation of Crimea; Azerbaijan is implicated in corruption to step criticism over Aliyev's rule).

The "European states outside the CoE club" is not exactly one to strive for membership of, to the extent even a lot of Tory MPs in favour of Brexit are opposed to leave the ECHR; David Davis in fact threatened to rebel over it at one point.

The matter is a little more complex than this, given the EU itself is a signatory to ECHR, so indirectly via the ECJ and so forth decisions via the ECHR can affect any EU member.

Historically the ECHR has been a hugely respected Court, the shame alone of an adverse decision against a State has often been more than enough to prompt action. Most EU states have domestic legislation forcing their courts to interpret domestic statute in a manner compatible with the ECHR. Some go even further. Scotland's parliament, for example, is entirely unable to legislate in a manner incompatible with the ECHR.

In today's world, with its crumbling institutions, who knows if the 'shame' effect still means what it once did.

It's surprising to find that the ECHR does not consider same-sex marriage a human right.

>> Convention for the Protection of Human Rights

>> Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination:

>> The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. [0]

Granted, its not about marriage, but according to the ECHR, its a human right to live free of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[0]: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventio...

I don't see anything about sexual orientation, just sex which would be about being male/female (possibly transexual depending on the interpretation?).

[Edit] There is this, which seems to leave it to the nations:

>>Article 12 – Right to marry

>> Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

Discriminating against sexual orientation isn't possible without discriminating against sex. A woman is allowed to marry a man, but a man is not.

Both man and women have the right to enter marriage, which is defined in the document as the union between Man and Women (Much clearer in the french version).

People are starting to realize that this definition is incompatible with rules against gender-based discrimination.

That's only if you believe that discrimination (selection bias) is the same as discrimination (categorizing). There's no apparent failure of logic until you start confusing them (eg "starting to realize"). If some people are starting to believe that the definitions are synonymous, they are wrong and will have to deal with the issues that naturally occur when you confuse ideals with reality. Generally some population group suffers for another population group to be supplicated in an arbitrary way.

This isn't about the kind of discrimination being allowed. This is about which groups we apply protections to. Do you also think I'm mistaken that a law defining marriage as the union between two people of the same race is incompatible with a law forbidding racial discrimination in marriage rights?

I am a person. And I am not starting to, at all.

I mean that there's a building legal recognition that laws against sex discrimination are incompatible with laws that discriminate against sexual orientation or gender identification. I did not mean that every single person on earth is aware of being at the start of a personal change.

How does Russia remain a signatory?

In most countries the same-sex marriage comes trough legislation, not from court decisions.

ECHR has ruled that relationship of two same-sex partners falls under the notion of "family life". It means equality of treatment and non-discrimination in regard to the protection of family life.

But no same-sex marriage right. I's my understanding that this is difference between individual rights and state obligations.

The ECHR was founded in 1953, at that time homosexuality was illegal pretty much everywhere. And if you look at UDHR (from 1948), There is article 16 that is kind of against same-sex marriage. But it's not very clearly stated; I don't think they even imagined that same-sex marriage could one day be a thing.

[OT] Kazakhstan is Central Asia.

I'm sure this is one of the many true reasons for Brexit, all of them hidden from the mass of people voting for it.

Part of Kazakhstan is within Europe.[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe#Contemporary_definition

I think it is that we can't do anything about a vast number of serious criminals without cessation from any appearance of such laws. I know that in isolated cases the law is bluntly ignored and treated with contempt.

That's a Daily Mail argument. The UK was a founder member of the Council of Europe in 1949, and the Euro Commission of HR looked heavily to the civil liberties traditions of the UK and others.

It is only the current crop of hard-Brexit Tories that have suddenly taken so against it. The previous 70 years, long before we even joined the EU or abolished hanging, managed to deal with criminals just fine without proposing leaving CoE

I doubt anyone who was aware of both expected leaving the EU would have any connection with the CoE and ECHR membership

If you can't stop criminals without breaking the law yourself get another job. And if you have to trample human rights to do it maybe you should be right next to those criminals, getting the same treatment.

I'm sure you would quickly have a change of heart if you were subjected to the same violations.

I continue to be harassed often daily often violently since t spent a six year sentence in​prison for breach of a order that never existed, procured or forged by a social worker to remove me from being able to prevent him defrauding my elderly mother. I have been almost laughed at by judges. I was actually told to forget my right to trial by a senior judge.

>>somewhat alarming since both Russia and Azerbaijan, countries with comparatively poor records on human rights, are signatories.

So you admit it's ineffective then?

The ECHR is completely separate from the EU so no matter what way the actual Brexit goes, they will still be a member of the ECHR. Whether they might want to leave that as well is another matter.

All people hear are "European" and "Court" and assume its part of the EU and Brexit means the end of that so we can get back to torturing and executing like the Good old Days...

I would say the European Court of Justice is also outside the EU as it also regulates the EEA, but Brexit has meant leaving that too for about two years now.

I know it seems weird and cynical to say a government might not understand what it is and isn’t leaving, but my total lack of faith in the UK government at this point means I’ve chosen to leave the country rather than risk it.

No, the CJEU does not regulate the EEA. That would be the EFTA Court.

I don't think there's any reason to make that assumption at all. Aside from the ECHR !== EU thing than a dozen other people have already pointed out – and the fact that the ECHR is substantially a UK invention – I just don't get why you think this would make a difference.

ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. And Britain created the ECHR.

They both have "European" in the name, so obviously the same thing. Now if you'll excuse me I'm reading my Daily Mail.

> There have been conflicts with ECHR over torture ... the treatment of Republicans in Northern Ireland

ECHR found in favour of the UK recently: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/11/echr-judges-...

However, note that the ECHR basically redefined torture in Selmouni v France, stating that the standards for torture can increase over time as we advance. The convention is a "living instrument which must be interpreted in the light of present-day condition"

That drive includes pushback at limiting the transparency over tax havens/evasion and media ownership, and lower working quality standards.

>I have a suspicion that at least part of the drive for Brexit comes from the determination of the British security services to preserve their last little island of unaccountable Empire

That's a poor strategy then, since it's likely Scotland will have a second independence referendum and there is much strong support for independence now that it's seen as a way to stay in the European union.

Sadly there's no constitutional obligation for them to hold or respect that, or even preserve the Scottish parliament; I fear the situation may end up like Catalonia. Similar signals are in place for Northern Ireland.

Well you are technically correct, and despite the meme being that technically correct is the best type of correct, I don’t think that argument will hold up very well against a crowd of angry Glaswegians.

> The EU is becoming increasingly insignificant in terms of global GDP share and will continue to do so.

I mean, it’s the second largest entity in terms of nominal GDP after the US, and second largest in terms of PPP GDP after China. As a share of global GDP, sure, it’s diminishing; after all, essentially all developed countries are. It is still very significant, however. Even if you assume that world GDP per capita is ever spread evenly, it’d be nearly 10% (currently, it’s 16% PPP).

I don’t remember countries leaving the EU left and right. Or that 100% of the Brits voted for Brexit. I do remember your government basically admitting that Brexit will hurt the UK no matter how it is executed.

Ah, an advocate for murdering the political opponents of the state.

(Not trolling, that's literally what happened)

The EU is not a failed project, it has tons of benefits for tons of people.