Home

The objective of the movement is to renounce the adherence of the United Kingdom to Articles 25 and 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

·        The first and overriding duty of the governmental institutions of the UK is to protect the security, legal rights, economic well-being and way of life of those who are legitimately its citizens.

·        The duty arises solely for those persons have a legal standing as a citizen, and does not extend to the same degree to those who do not have this standing. The duty requires the state, if necessary, to apply different rules and rights to those who are citizens from those who are not.

·        The governmental institutions of the UK cannot escape this duty. Their ultimate responsibility cannot be evaded by attempts to delegate, share or dilute the duty.

·        The legal rights of British citizens are established by the common law and by statute.  Although there are many agencies which may make law or regulations, the ultimate decision must rest upon these two, and Parliament is the final arbiter.

·         A British citizen must know whether an act is lawful before he or she acts, and that an act is lawful until it declared otherwise.  This is our most fundamental right. The concept of “human rights” enforceable in the courts breaches this right.  “Human rights” conventions state the purported law in imprecise terms that are open to many interpretations.  It is not possible to know in advance what is lawful and what is not. Also, an act that is currently lawful may be declared unlawful after its commission.  These techniques have long been valuable weapons in the arsenal of tyrants, and have hitherto been resisted by common law and Parliament.

·         “Human rights” conventions transfer the final decision on law-making from Parliament to the judiciary. They undermine the essential principle that policy must be decided by democratic processes, and is not the province of the judiciary. They lead to the politicisation of the judiciary. They replace democracy with an oligarchy. 

·        The overweening power of the judiciary in the United Kingdom under the Human Rights Act (1998), constitutionally repugnant though it is, is tempered because the Act reserves to Parliament the right to exclude the operation of the Act.

·        This power, however, is useless. The United Kingdom subscribes to the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore agrees to be subject to the Court in Strasbourg. There already exist many cases in which Parliament has been in effect instructed to change its statutes in accordance, not with the wishes of the elected representatives, but according to the preferences of the Court. The power of the Court overrides any residual authority of Parliament protected by the Human Rights Act 1998.

·         The power to override Parliament derives in particular from Articles 25 and 46 pf the Convention.  Article 25 conveys the right of individual petition to the Court and Article 46 establishes the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. Neither Article was originally accepted by the United Kingdom. The acceptance of the Articles has crept in since 1966 by fiat of the Foreign Office. At no time was Parliamentary approval sought for this, the largest surrender of control over our internal law ever made. 

·         For well over a decade the United Kingdom adhered to the Convention but not to Articles 25 and 46. There is no reason why this position could not be reinstated.

·         The effect would be that those who value the Convention can still employ its aspirations as guidance for lawmakers and policy administrators, but it would not be directly enforceable in British Courts if the United Kingdom Parliament determined it was not appropriate.

·         In particular, the United Kingdom would be able once more to make the distinction between those who are legally its citizens and those who are not. The decision A(FC) and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department and its wicked consequences arises from the assertion that aliens and UK citizens must share the same rights. As a result, the legal rights that British citizens have enjoyed for many centuries were curtailed because they could not safely be extended to aliens as well. When combined with the imposition of an untenable judicial interpretation of Article 3 of the Convention, this decision caused a dereliction of the duty to protect the security and legal rights of British citizens.

·         There are other international conventions which give power to international bodies to determine our internal laws, and thus to subjugate Parliament to external control. These also should be amended. They derive from the use of the royal prerogative to conduct affairs with other nations and to make treaties. The traditional use of the prerogative was for dealings in trade or policy between this country and other states. It has now improperly been used to sidestep Parliament and diminish its authority.

·        There are now too many interests vested in the continuance of these powers for there to be significant reform in the immediate future. Their further and further extension, however, will soon make any reform almost impossible. 25-46 will arrest this unceasing momentum and give time for people to make serious consideration of whether this is really where they want to go.

25-46 is run by Fred Silvester, a former MP, who from the 1980s has warned of the dangers that are now becoming evident to all.  Fred Silvester’s book “Global Speak – The Five Untruths” deals with these issues in greater detail.   His newly published work “Rape of Democracy” is short and pithy, and uses the tradition of verse in British politics to make the case. To find out more about these books visit www.humanrights.uk.com  

If you agree with the objective of 25-46 (and even if you do not), then please visit the Join The Discussion page and add your comments.