And as some further clarification, we were signed up to the ECHR before the Human Rights Act was passed. People could pursue things to the European Court but it wasn't UK law at the time. This meant that trying to use it tended to be very expensive. It also meant that the UK govt was much more likely to lose a case since although not enshrined in UK law the ECHR would take preference at European (not EU) level.
While I sometimes am with the line from Shakespeare and think let's kill all the lawyers, the idea that Owlswing is implying that this was merely a way to make money doesn't really fly. Also i'm not entirely sure what people would specifically disagree with in terms of the rights given in the ECHR.
The question with the Tory proposal is whether they withdraw from the ECHR completely. A convention to which UK lawyers did a lot of the drafting for and is based on much of UK particularly English law.
I am not sure what their envisaged bill will contain but the passing of it, attempted or successful, and the resulting cases, will not lead to the impoverishment or lack of employment for lawyers, more likely the opposite.
I would be interested in what thoughts anyone has on what such a bill should contain that the ECHR doesn't, or what it should miss out
