-
The Government (rather, Parliament) is bound only inasmuch as the ECHR is incorporated into the HRA (and any other UK legislation), no? Because sovereignty, and Parliament can not be bound by its predecessors.
Ignoring it would be unlawful, but there's nothing stopping them from repealing the relevant parts of HRA, other than other multi- / uni-lateral agreements that are contingent and / or dependent on it.
Unpleasant company would probably be the best we can expect, given the current shitshow.
-
The Government (rather, Parliament) is bound only inasmuch as the ECHR is incorporated into the HRA (and any other UK legislation), no?
Not quite. By international law the government (or more accurately the nation) would still be bound by the ECHR, regardless of whether its implemented into domestic law directly or not. Prior to the HRA98 citizens of the UK could still rely upon the ECHR to vindicate their human rights against the government of the day, but they had to go to Strasbourg and to the European Court on Human Rights to get a ruling, the domestic courts couldn't apply the ECHR directly. In order to go to Strasbourg it was usually necessary to exhaust all potential remedies and avenues of appeal domestically, resulting in getting to Strasbourg being a long, complex and most importantly very expensive process.
Domestic courts could however, and still would, interpret domestic law so that it is compatible with the ECHR so long as there was permissible scope to do so.
You're right there's nothing to prevent HMG from repealing the HRA98, which would put us back into the same position where we were prior to that Act. Signatories to the ECHR, bound by it, but with a rather byzantine route to enforcement.
As for unpleasant company, I think the UK is rapidly on its way to being it, let alone being in it.
The government would still be bound by the European Convention on Human Rights though, being a signatory to it. OK, they could just ignore it, but that puts you in some pretty unpleasant company.