The Human Rights Act is just another Act of Parliament. Any government who has enough MPs would eventually be able to get an amendment through Parliament. They might have to wait twelve months to bypass the House of Lords. But in the end, the amendment would become law.
The question is, what would it achieve to amend the HRA whilst still remaining in the ECHR. The solution put forward by
@motorbiking.
Say, as a deterrent, the government decided to stop all support for anyone arriving on a small boat. They were left homeless and without any money so they had to beg on the streets. They became unwell as a result, but they were refused any medical assistance. Would that be inhuman and degrading treatment under the ECHR.
Well let's agree, for the sake of argument, that it would be.
But how can they take action against the UK. If the HRA has been amended to stop it applying to small boat people, they can't bring a claim in the domestic courts. But they are still protected by the ECHR. So instead they would just bring a claim at Strasbourg. This is why I do not see the benefit of what is being suggested above. Other than it might be harder to bring a claim. And as I have pointed out several times already, the government doesn't actually have to follow a ruling under the HRA or ECHR in any event.
