Should Britain Scrap the Human Rights Act?
What does the EUCHR do for us, and how does philosophy help settle this question?
Overanalyzing Vlog Playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvoAL-KSZ32cLCs6y3RYBjSFVMnQrAka_
Subscribe! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=thephilosophytube
Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/PhilosophyTube
FAQ: https://www.facebook.com/PhilosophyTube/posts/460163027465168
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/PhilosophyTube?ref=hl
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Jeremy Waldron, “The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review,” in The Yale Law Journal, 2006.
Richard Fallon, “The Core of an Uneasy Case for Judicial Review,” in The Harvard Law Review, 2008.
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Music: ‘Carefree’ by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.
@andrewharrison8436
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
8 years later and the "take back control" mob have taken us out of Europe.
Now, more than ever, we need an independent safety net.
@antonidamk
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
Two key points no one else has mentioned yet:
1) Why do we assume that an elected body is best placed to determine human rights violations? Human rights are a complex legal concept – they require a trained judge to interpret and apply. You wouldn't want the House of Commons doing your surgery, why would you want them to perform philosophy that could have serious consequences on your life?
2) It is key to note that removing the Human Rights Act 1998 itself will not remove the European Convention on Human Rights. In fact this is what we had before 1998 – we still had the European Convention and had to comply with it, but the only way to enforce the European Convention on Human Rights (which, by the way, has nothing to do with the EU) was to go to the court in Strasbourg. Obviously this was really difficult, and expensive, and took forever, and you had to sue the whole country. What the Human Rights Act 1998 did was allow English courts to consider human rights claims against individual government bodies. Removing the Human Rights Act will not remove the European Convention on Human Rights – it will actually just take away our sovereignty to enforce it ourselves and will force us to go abroad.
And just to reiterate, we do also have judicial review and fundamental rights that our courts developed way before human rights were a thing, but they can only go so far with inventing new laws without parliament agreeing to them.
@joeydoherty368
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
UK politics are pretty entertaining. They’re seconded only by a country that I don’t think needs mentioning.
@LyricalDJ
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
Conveniently, this is also why I prefer bicameral legislatures as opposed to unicameral legislatures.
@TheFireHawkDelta
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
Any law restricting the power of a government can not realistically be enforced by that same government. Even with a bill of rights, the British Parliament would have discretion over how to interpret it, i.e. ignore it entirely like the US government does with its bill of rights whenever it wants to do anything at all.
@georgeparkins777
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
Is the sound sync bad for anyone else?
@berlineczka
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) it NOT part of the European Union. ECHR is part of the Council of Europe system, which is a fully separate international organisation, preceeding the EU by some 40 years. The only link is that all member states of the EU are also members of CoE and ECHR, so there is a judiciary territorial overlap. And since the EU has signed the European Convention of Human Rights (the legal basis for ECHR), the EU can now also be sued before ECHR. But the Court itself is not part of the EU legal framework.
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is part of the EU system and it decides whether certain laws and regulations are complying with the aquis communitaire (the legal body of the EU). It has no power over human rights issues.
Summing up:
ECHR: part of Council of Europe, about human rights, legally based on European Convention of Human Rights
ECJ: part of the EU, about the laws of the EU (e.g. access to Single Market), based on EU Treaties (TEU, TFEU)
@lionardo
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
this is something that 3rd world countries need, but not the UK. Also, there will never be a consensus in terms of what constitutes any human to be granted a human right. E.g. Scientifically it is proven to not be good to mix genes with your primary or secondary cousins (Inbred) but in Islam, that act gets enforced by culture/religion. So what is it now? Provide some religious Freedom or partial religious freedom. Can these retarded kids sue their parents?
@havenbastion
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
The whole thing about elections goes nowhere. Elections are not fair.
@havenbastion
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
So if the government infringes your rights the government should be able to decide whether it has infringed your rights?
@yoney7555
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
The human rights act depends on the political system governing the country.If the policy change , automatically the human rights laws change and this change will affect everything…So the human rights act is not constant but it is varying.The conservative party and the labour party have different program concerning the human rights.
@Raj-ul9my
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
If they scrap the human rights act then we will be living in a police state, and we would not be able to question the government on their acts and legislation's they impose on us,
@szeredaiakos
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
human rights has little to do with the juridical system. although it can form a basis for it but at that point its called a "law" not a "right".
– and then you go on a political rant and technical concerns. i have never expected the british not having the slightest clue what a right is.
@ToonandBBfan
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
The Human Rights act was one of the worst thing's we ever entered into. Sooner its torn up the better
@heinz091
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
I'm very much of the Reductio ad Butthurt line of reasoning, however to play devil's advocate I'd like to consider a scenario where the British Bill of Rights on offer (or indeed any sovereign bill) was somehow proven to provide objectively better protections than the pre-existing EU bill:
In a hypothetical reality where we had no say on the EU bill, and the EU courts were able to overrule the British Bill of Rights we would have a "safety net" that was actually watering down the protections provided by the "better" system which a later government could appeal to when they were unable to change the "sovereign" bill (e.g. because of a strong opposition to doing so).
Is that enough to say that an independent / unelected body isn't necessarily better than an elected one?
If so, then a body proposing a british bill of rights might be legitimate in thinking they had a case if they thought they could do a genuinely "better" job than the EHCR. There would presumably be a burden on them in demonstrating this before pulling out of the EHCR but it would mean that a BBHR could be a good idea.
Disclaimer: I do not have any faith in the current government, or any recently elected government I have any knowledge of, to put together such a superior piece of legislation.
@NakasDougen
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
Is the UK parliament also the Supreme Court equivalent? In the US they don't go to foreign courts but they have an independent Supreme Court that can rule against the government
@davidmurray2964
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
But still the uk gov does not have to follow the ruling. An example being prisoners' voting rights. I think the safety net idiom works both ways somtimes. An illegal criminal cannot be deported if he may suffer torture for example . This is something that is not in the interests of the uk
@the1exnay
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
i like how the american surpreme court does it, as it doesnt require other countries being part of the process in order to get a different perspective
that being said scrapping the human rights act would only temporarily cause the problem you mentioned. the current government would make the new bill of rights in line with their own opinions, but subsequent parliaments would have the old bill of rights to deal with. same as how american courts base it on the constitution which at the time was made by the same government which would make laws but now it is not, the membership of congress is completely different from when the constitution was made.
@tuckerspolitics8255
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
Important point worth noting, the ECHR has no judicial power and only soft power, the ECHR cannot over rule the government. And i'm a euroskeptic!!
@csbened16
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
An elected body has no responsabilty to the people. That is a myth. They can say A before election and vote B (even non A) after they win. Then comes an other politician doing the same. And politicians doing this personally dont loose, they will have the 4 year salary and the connections. So, if you do your job wrong, you are fired in 1-2 month. If you are an anteprenor, you loose money. The politician is not. Only after 4 year and only if he can not PR avay. No expert has any say in what the government does. No science is ever applied. And a 180 IQ has the same 1 vote as a 90 IQ who can be bought with circus and panem. Republic is a fake system, very good in 1700. The only system where IT is not used.
@DinethCat
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
No. The EU HR courts to ensure a "safety net" argument is bull. It violates national sovereignty. It is the EU budding into British internal issues. On the international stage, states are in an anarchic state, out for their own self interest, there is no "international arbiter" of a god like character to judge what states do, no NGO nor the UN, nor the EU can trump a legitimate state's sovereignty, if that were the case there'd be no purpose of state borders (oh wait that's the EU's agenda isn't it). The safety net can be internal to the UK and still be impartial even if it is a case against the government; the judiciary's job is to "interpret the law, and to decide what it just and unjust" It is literally in the business of moral philosophy. It should be their job, in the US state cases which are appealed are taken over by the federal courts right up to the supreme courts, which are a check on all other branches of government. The test often comes down to the American Constitution on what is and what isn't constitutional. Thus a British Bill of rights would ensure the same thing, and the House of Lords I assume is what you guys call the Judiciary; get them to deal with its implementation. "Justice" is often includes concepts like human rights which are just one aspect of justice overall.
@lennydale92
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
The death of the British idea of liberty and rights, and the rise of the European Empire. Good job.
@HimslGames
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
your lips are not in synch with your voice!
@jimphillips95
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
If there were a bill of rights voted in by a 'super-majority'/referendum, it would get around the issue of the bill of rights being made by the same set of politicians.
The 'super-majority' are the safety-net.
@michaelcabrales1120
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
From what you described in your video, I think your use of the judicial review debate in the US is a bit misleading.
1. US judicial review deals with constitutionality of congressional acts, not human rights.
2. In the US, judicial review is only possible because the US Constitution is recognized as the supreme law of the land. This creates a situation in where unelected supreme court justices can rule laws unconstitutional, while still having this question remain internal to the US. With that in mind, your situation has this legislative problem not remain in its country of origin.
@juanenfermobastardo337
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
Minor point you got wrong about US Judicial Review:
US courts do NOT invalidate a law because that law contradicts human rights, it invalidates a law because it contradicts the US Constitution (as currently interpreted by the courts based on legal precedent).
It could be that because the first ten amendments to US Constitution are called "the Bill of Rights" that was the cause of this error.
@jazzajohn
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
I'm planning a video on this and you're explaining it way better than I am. GAH!
@issuebyissue8069
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
Video on Al Farabi Please! or avicenna
@kujmous
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
Who watches the watchmen?
@danr.5017
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
What if on the off change the EU breaks up? No human tights act no European court, leaving Britain with without any oversight or legal protections for it's people.
most countries simply rely on A supreme court to deal with these matters and honestly it makes more sense. A country's laws need to be set and regulated internally,be cause you otherwise run the risk of having any say in your own government of there is an unwanted change across the pond.
France for example is largely islamophobic and and racial tensions in europe have been high strung since..forever really. Say the NF gets in, and their representatives starts straight up ignoring any human rights complaint voiced by Muslim representatives. Do you really feel comfortable using a system that can run the risk of turning the human rights court in to a ironically dark weapon tool of oppression? Talk about privilege.
@danday7687
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
America! America! God shed his grace on thee… As an American I would just solve it with checks and balances within the government, just like in the US of A. I am different than most Americans in that I really really like monarchy, so I would suggest giving HM Queen Elizabeth, the power to "check" the legislature as our Supreme Court does.
@AlexGoldhill
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
I'm not against a British Bill of Rights per se, I just don't think that the Conservative Party; a party that appointed someone who opposed equal marriage as their equality minister, who has stated that they aim to drastically increase government surveillance online, whose leader gave a speech about how it was bad that Britain has been too tolerant, whose approach to asylum seekers has repeatedly been called out for violating human rights (though too be fair Labour governments weren't much better), and who for the past five years have been waging an unrelenting war against the most vulnerable in society, might not be the best people to write it.
@mikec3172
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
That's similar to what Hamilton said towards the end. Instead he also added to it that it could be dangerous to add a Bill of Rights for it being a risk of becoming something close to Parliament. Though I'm not sure how that issue would take in Britian
@john-alanpascoe5848
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
Since this debate is also tied up in the whole EU debate, it is probably worth pointing out that the European Court of Human Rights is an international court established by the European Convention on Human Rights. Neither of those have anything to do with the EU.
In fact the ECHR is binding on a number of countries that are not EU members. The ECHR judges whether countries have acted in violation of a specific international treaty (viz. the European Convention of Human Rights) and it has jurisdiction over the countries that are contracting states to that treaty.
The EU has its own 'supreme court' to judge on matters of European law, but this is the European Court of Justice.
tl;dr: the ECHR is not an arm of the EU, and its jurisdiction is unrelated to EU membership.
@joecoolmccall
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
Interesting discussion to view as an outsider in the United States.
As an American, I would be quite against having any type of outside court having any say or authority in my country. I'm even skeptical with American judges point to international law as setting precedence in court decisions. This isn't because of some sort of exceptionalism, but more because I feel that internal affairs of a country should be just that- internal. As a sovereign nation, such a court have no place.
Plus, who would execute the law? Unless you have some sort of international army (God forbid), then any decision made would have no teeth- and would promptly ignored.
@HallaSurvivor
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
It seems like the solution, if elected courts are more legitimate than unelected and a body separate from the government/law is safer, is to have an elected institution separate from the regular government. I know almost nothing about the issue, so is that a bit closer to what the EU is proposing? At the very least, it seems as though the two arguments are not mutually exclusive.
@MadPotCoins
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
How can more government protect human rights when government is established by violating human rights? To protect human right, the only thing necessary is to abolish government.
@sirwillgaby
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
Why have you ignored the fact that the judiciary is separate from the legislature?
@mathieuleader8601
February 9, 2026 at 12:20 am
one could use Fallon's propersition to perserve the House of Lords
Comments are closed.