Actually, yes. And the really interesting thing is that Theresa May railed for years against the ECHR, which led many to believe she would back Leave in the referendum. She was one of the cabinet "big beasts" the Leave side hoped to net ahead of the campaign. In the end, she largely disappeared from public view - certainly, she gave a speech or two in favour of Remain, but it was clear that she had other priorities.
I think the United States is entirely correct not to be party to the ICC.
the ECHR is NOT an EU institution!
The EU's top court is the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), often referred to as the ECJ.
The 2 are not the same and are not located in the same place even:
the CJEU(ECJ) is located in Luxembourg,
whereas the ECHR is located in Strasbourg, which happens to also be one of the seats of the EU Parliament, contributing to the confusion maybe.
Leaving the EU does nothing to your membership of the Council of Europe who's court is the ECHR is and who's flag is identical to the EU's flag, thus also adding to the general confusion amongst many people it's all the same, whereas it really isn't.
Still, you can do all the reading, or better still: it should have been explained to you prior to the referendum.
Yes, thank you. I am aware of all of this. Aesma asked if I was against the ECHR and ICC in addition
to the ECJ. There is no confusion over the nature of the three institutions. But perhaps I ought be clearer: When Theresa May came to power, given her well-documented opposition to the ECHR (to which, as you will know, non-EU members Russia and Turkey are also party), Brexit would provide the impetus for us to leave that too.
Why should it?
It was NOT what the referendum was about really: you might just as well add leaving UEFA to the list then...
Although an absurd exemple, I agree, it would have found as much ground in the referendum result as leaving the Council of Europe.
A surprise add-on the Britain leaving the EU is the UK's departure from Euratom however!
Although now incorporated into the EU's governing institutions for purposes of efficiency, it's still a separate organisation governed by its own treaty and is not controlled by the European Parliament not subject to the ECJ rulings unless by unanimous delegation by all of it's (associated) member states, which includes Switzerland too, btw.
Technically, there's no real ground to pull the UK out of Euratom and there's no obvious advantage either (no FoM, no meaningful budgetairy contribution etc), whereas it will create significant issues for both domestic healthcare as well as British nuclear energy supply to the point the House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee questioned the legal necessity of leaving Euratom even.
In hindsight, it seemed like TM initially just decided no EU institutions could be seen to have some control over British matters through their day-to-day work for Euratom, things which are going to happen anyway as the UK discovered meanwhile it can not possibly duplicate the entire EU's regulatory ans supervisory set up and now wants to participate in several other real
EU incorporated agencies like for instance EASA, EMA and Europol (European arrest and extradition warrant for instance)...
Just shows you that the extend of the withdrawal was not very well thought through really and was based on public perception rather than careful consideration: the withdrawal from Euratom clearly IS a technical mistake, but one that no UK politician can correct now without being seen as backpeddling on Brexit!