RT @CapX: 'Today, Kemi Badenoch said that the UK is in danger of becoming a ‘welfare state with an economy attached – 28 million people in….

Watch Lord Lilley expose how some campaigners use the Churchill myth to defend the ECHR. They claim he proudly created it as a British achievement, but Peter's. new CPS report sets out how Churchill actually refused to let it govern Britain ⬇️

RT @CapX: 'Stories about chicken nuggets obstructing the proper course of justice aren’t just good headlines, they are testaments to an adm….

RT @ASI: Really interesting report from our Senior Fellow Lord Lilley. Lord Lilley sets out why leaving the ECHR may be the only way to s….

The choice, he says, is becoming stark: accept that democracy has limits set by foreign judges, or restore democratic sovereignty. Other common-law countries like Australia and Canada protect rights without international courts. The question is whether Britain still can. Read his.

Lord Lilley’s paper argues that when courts make inherently political decisions, they become political institutions. The independence that makes judiciary trustworthy evaporates when judges are required to govern rather than adjudicate.

This hasn’t just been a problem for the Tories, but every recent government. Tony Blair ordered ministers to examine withdrawal after deportation rulings. David Cameron, Theresa May, and Rishi Sunak all publicly considered leaving. Even Starmer's government is now talking about.

Perhaps the most dramatic example of this came when judges ordered Switzerland to strengthen its climate policies - overriding a referendum result – because living on a warming planet violated a group of elderly women’s right to privacy and family life.

How did this happen? Judges declared the Convention to be a ‘living instrument’. That meant that ‘respect for family life’ could be used it to block terrorist deportations, restrict aircraft noise, prevent housing evictions, and now dictate climate policy.

The scale of judicial intervention became clear over time. Since 1966, Strasbourg has ruled against Britain in 329 out of 567 cases - covering military operations, environmental policy, prisoner voting, deportation law.

In 1966, Harold Wilson accepted the Court's jurisdiction to signal Britain's European credentials, announced during Christmas recess, never debated in Parliament. Then Tony Blair's 1998 Human Rights Act gave Convention rights direct effect in British law. Two decisions that.

🧵You'll often hear that Britain created the ECHR - that Churchill championed it and Attlee embraced it as codifying British values. The reality is different. Both leaders specifically refused to let the Court govern Britain. So what changed?

RT @Towler: Delighted to attend the ⁦@CPSThinkTank⁩ event this morning with Lord Lilley discussing his new paper on the ECHR. https://t.co….

RT @emmamrevell: Good early crowd for our event with Peter Lilley on the ECHR

RT @CPSThinkTank: The ECHR debate isn't going away. Join us in discussion with former Cabinet Minister Lord Lilley as he breaks down his ne….

Read Lord Lilley's ful analysis here:

🚨 NEW REPORT: Lord Lilley warns leaving the ECHR may be Britain's only way to protect judicial independence and democratic accountability. Challenges myths about the Convention's origins and shows how it has politicised our courts. Full analysis below 👇

The ECHR debate isn't going away. Join us in discussion with former Cabinet Minister Lord Lilley as he breaks down his new report on Britain's options - from meaningful reform to complete withdrawal. Live streaming from 9:15 this morning 👇.

'We've been running public finances since the financial crisis on the basis that something will turn up, that productivity growth will snap back, that living standards will rise again. We're slowly accepting that's not going to happen.'.@rcolvile reacts to today's OBR report ⬇️

RT @DrGerardLyons: My @Telegraph piece on why a wealth tax would be economically damaging, administratively burdensome and ultimately count….