5/ The context: the failure of the common law to prevent miscarriages of justice as regards Irish people in particular (from @conorgearty again). If death penalty advocates had their way, these men would not only have been wrongfully convicted, but also murdered by the state.
The Council of Europe statute provides for suspension and possibly termination of membership for members who have "seriously violated" the rule of law or human rights - whether that would be considered the case due to denouncing ECHR remains to be seen
It seems that a very very basic point has to be made again: international treaties are binding on the UK in international law, even if they are not incorporated in (or breached by) domestic law. Here's the Supreme Court confirming this in Miller. 1/
2/ This very very basic feature of the law applies in spite of any statements by Brexity lawyers who write for the Spectator.
Equally it means that a bill which would breach a treaty is not "illegal", still less criminal, as a matter of domestic law.
3/ And a very basic constitutional convention is that the Queen signs bills passed by Parliament. Spare us from the "deus ex regina" discourse this time, please.
The Spectator piece is by a barrister who blocked me for pointing out that he was falsely claiming that the withdrawal agreement was temporary. On this issue, the Brexit deal is separate from the withdrawal agreement, which does not have a human rights/rule of law break clause.
As for the Brexit deal, the human rights/rule of law break clauses mostly concern criminal law. There is an "essential elements" clause referring to the entire treaty, but it's subject to a high threshold to use it: eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2021/01/analys…
See also my recent thread on human rights and the Brexit deal -
EU Commission statement in response to Polish constitutional tribunal judgment
I've seen a suggestion that the Polish constitutional judgment should be interpreted as an Article 50 notification of withdrawal from the EU. This is unconvincing. The judgment (in the translated excerpts I have seen) does not state an intention to withdraw. 1/
2/ Nor AFAIK is it notified to the European Council, as required by Article 50(2) TEU. Thirdly, international law (the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, which the CJEU has used to interpret Article 50) requires a notification from a senior government member.
The TCA includes a reference to the importance of giving domestic legal effect to the ECHR in the criminal law part of the TCA. However, repealing the HRA would not automatically terminate the treaty as a whole or its criminal law part. 1/
2/ Nor is there a fast-track route to termination of the TCA, or its criminal law part, explicitly on the ground that the UK repeals the HRA.
3/ If, on the other hand, the UK denounced the ECHR, or the protocols to the ECHR which the UK has ratified, there is a fast track to terminate the criminal law part of the TCA.
New AG opinion: a person with asylum in one Member State can apply for asylum in another Member State in exceptional cases, ie where the first Member State is unsafe, taking account of whether they have a family member in the second Member State
New AG opinion: excluding domestic workers from unemployment benefit is indirect discrimination as they are mostly women; attempts to justify it should fail as they are based on gender stereotypes