So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.
It hasn't happened yet, if it isn't happening it won't deter people.
If it does happen, then it will deter people.
Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.
The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
I supported you yesterday Barty, on NIP, but you posted there is ridiculous. The UK plan is not the same as Australian system, the Australian system didn’t work as well as you claim, and the problem the UK is facing on illegal migration is different.
At least concede those three points, before building a case in favour.
The Australian system did work as well as I claim, there hasn't been a single death by drowning from illegal boat crossings since the system was put in place. That is an incredible achievement, if we could achieve the same in the UK then great.
The plan is not the same, but it could be, if implemented properly. But to work it means that virtually all irregular boat crossings end up in Rwanda, which would halt the irregular boat crossings, rather than none of them or an inconsequential proportion of them.
Stu from Romford just explained it better than I can why this cannot work here. In fact a lot of people have, and in a way they are actually trying to help the people who arn’t listening, like the stuff you are posting. We arn’t trying to hurt anyone or play politics here, we are just trying to get the Penny to drop for you, don’t use Oz as example to the success this could be.
I’ll have one more go. A cold shower of the raw stats.
3,127 people were sent to Papua New Guinea/ Nauru since 2013 at cost to Australian taxpayer of AUS$10 billion. £1.7m per person.
Last year, 28,526 crossed the channel in small boats.
Patel herself has pointed out the two schemes are not the same. Ours isn’t offshore processing to prevent a trip, ours is old school colonialism to deter a trip.
How do you see this changing peoples minds about coming here? Do you really genuinely believe it will make any great number pause and rethink?
FFS the numbers since 2013 are diminished by the fact that the crossings all-but stopped after the policy came into force, because the policy worked. What part of that are you struggling to understand?
The figures to look at for the policy aren't the post-2013 stats, they're the pre-2013 ones as that shows what has been deterred. In 2012 over 17 thousand people crossed by boat there, a number comparable to the numbers crossing the Channel.
AUD$1billion per annum since then is an absolute bargain, compared to the estimated £1.5bn the UK is spending today and if you divide it "per person" with the 2012 figure of 17,000 then it isn't £1.7m per person, it is AUD$55,823 per person or GBP £33.7k per person. £33k per person deterred is a very different figure compared to the current costs.
And you think, given a chance this will change minds and act as a deterrent?
Of course.
In 2013 the Australian government said everyone who crossed by water like that would be sent offshore. They were having over 17k such crossings in 2012, from 2013 onwards only 3k have needed to be sent offshore in a decade, because the crossings stopped or voluntarily turned around rather than ending up offshore.
People won't want to cross the water to end up in Rwanda. If people picked up in the water or who land on the shore are sent immediately and automatically to Rwanda then nobody would cross by water anymore and the drownings would end, and next to nobody would need to go to Rwanda, because next to nobody would be crossing the water.
The water crossing to Australia is much longer, so the deterrent is more effective. Without spending lots of money, we'll never get close to the same interception rate when dealing with Channel crossings. Ergo, the deterrent effect will be smaller. This doesn't negate your whole argument by any means, but it's good to recognise the practicalities.
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
I don't hold institutions or established frameworks as sacred in any way, but other than cheap political gains I don't really see the significant benefits from taking such severe choices. It seems disproportionate to any perceived goals.
There are no obvious benefits, and probably some insidious downsides. It’s another block removed from the jenga tower of liberalism.
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
It was set up for that purpose, but like the League of Nations it failed in its purpose.
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
Would the general public trust the Tories to protect citizens rights ? If they pull out of the ECHR they could do anything with their huge majority.
They already could, theoretically. Treaties and rules on paper don't stop governments that have the will and support to force things through. We rely on enough of that big majority not being willing to do literally anything. Institutional, legal and procedural hurdles do, however, assist in making MPs collectively step back from casually utilising that theoretical power though.
That's why so many hurdles exist, it isn't a bug of the system.
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
It was set up for that purpose, but like the League of Nations it failed in its purpose.
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
Canada and New Zealand aren't ECHR members because they're not in Europe.
(Of course, Australia IS in Europe, as demonstrated by Eurovision.)
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
It was set up for that purpose, but like the League of Nations it failed in its purpose.
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
Canada and NZ have Bills of Rights. The USA has a Constitution. Australia is a Western outrider.
Russia is a failure across multiple measures. Not sure why that entails scrapping the ECHR, except out of a spirit of judicial vandalism.
October 2022/3 general election: Who governs Britain? You? Or EU?
Easy response for the Opposition: "The Tories said they would get Brexit done. They're now saying they failed. We'll make Brexit work."
"Brexit is done... but one final push is needed to tell leftie, remaniac lawyers like Starmer that YOU want to govern Britain not EU"
You know it's gonna work for Con.
Labour will be back in 2027-2029 though. Con are drinking in the last chance saloon at the next election...
If they’re not careful, Labour will end up fighting FOR the right of unelected foreign judges in a foreign court to decide UK migration policy. That was maybe defensible when we were in the EU, with all the benefits of the EU, now it is indefensible
It has to go. It is a colonial hangover, like the Privy Council in London ruling on hangings in Jamaica
So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.
It hasn't happened yet, if it isn't happening it won't deter people.
If it does happen, then it will deter people.
Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.
The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
I supported you yesterday Barty, on NIP, but you posted there is ridiculous. The UK plan is not the same as Australian system, the Australian system didn’t work as well as you claim, and the problem the UK is facing on illegal migration is different.
At least concede those three points, before building a case in favour.
The Australian system did work as well as I claim, there hasn't been a single death by drowning from illegal boat crossings since the system was put in place. That is an incredible achievement, if we could achieve the same in the UK then great.
The plan is not the same, but it could be, if implemented properly. But to work it means that virtually all irregular boat crossings end up in Rwanda, which would halt the irregular boat crossings, rather than none of them or an inconsequential proportion of them.
Stu from Romford just explained it better than I can why this cannot work here. In fact a lot of people have, and in a way they are actually trying to help the people who arn’t listening, like the stuff you are posting. We arn’t trying to hurt anyone or play politics here, we are just trying to get the Penny to drop for you, don’t use Oz as example to the success this could be.
I’ll have one more go. A cold shower of the raw stats.
3,127 people were sent to Papua New Guinea/ Nauru since 2013 at cost to Australian taxpayer of AUS$10 billion. £1.7m per person.
Last year, 28,526 crossed the channel in small boats.
Patel herself has pointed out the two schemes are not the same. Ours isn’t offshore processing to prevent a trip, ours is old school colonialism to deter a trip.
How do you see this changing peoples minds about coming here? Do you really genuinely believe it will make any great number pause and rethink?
FFS the numbers since 2013 are diminished by the fact that the crossings all-but stopped after the policy came into force, because the policy worked. What part of that are you struggling to understand?
The figures to look at for the policy aren't the post-2013 stats, they're the pre-2013 ones as that shows what has been deterred. In 2012 over 17 thousand people crossed by boat there, a number comparable to the numbers crossing the Channel.
AUD$1billion per annum since then is an absolute bargain, compared to the estimated £1.5bn the UK is spending today and if you divide it "per person" with the 2012 figure of 17,000 then it isn't £1.7m per person, it is AUD$55,823 per person or GBP £33.7k per person. £33k per person deterred is a very different figure compared to the current costs.
And you think, given a chance this will change minds and act as a deterrent?
Of course.
In 2013 the Australian government said everyone who crossed by water like that would be sent offshore. They were having over 17k such crossings in 2012, from 2013 onwards only 3k have needed to be sent offshore in a decade, because the crossings stopped or voluntarily turned around rather than ending up offshore.
People won't want to cross the water to end up in Rwanda. If people picked up in the water or who land on the shore are sent immediately and automatically to Rwanda then nobody would cross by water anymore and the drownings would end, and next to nobody would need to go to Rwanda, because next to nobody would be crossing the water.
The water crossing to Australia is much longer, so the deterrent is more effective. Without spending lots of money, we'll never get close to the same interception rate when dealing with Channel crossings. Ergo, the deterrent effect will be smaller. This doesn't negate your whole argument by any means, but it's good to recognise the practicalities.
Indeed, that's why people who land on the shore would also need to be ending up in Rwanda for the policy to work, it can't just be about interceptions.
The Channel crossing is deadly, as is the journey to Australia by the boats that were being used, which is why the ALP implement the policy. If the policy is actually implemented, then it absolutely will work, and absolutely will be value for money, but it needs to be measured taking into account deterrence and not only by dividing the money spent by the extreme minority who weren't deterred.
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
It was set up for that purpose, but like the League of Nations it failed in its purpose.
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
Canada and New Zealand aren't ECHR members because they're not in Europe.
(Of course, Australia IS in Europe, as demonstrated by Eurovision.)
Why does it matter that the UK is in Europe?
I care far more about liberalism, which we share with our common law cousins, than continental geography, which is nothing more than geography.
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
It was set up for that purpose, but like the League of Nations it failed in its purpose.
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
Canada and NZ have Bills of Rights. The USA has a Constitution. Australia is a Western outrider.
Russia is a failure across multiple measures. Not sure why that entails scrapping the ECHR, except out of a spirit of judicial vandalism.
The ECHR is the failure. Russia should have been expelled decades ago if the ECHR actually meant anything more than used toilet paper.
The UK has laws of rights too, our courts should be answerable to our Parliament and our Parliament alone. Just as Canada, NZ, Australia etc all have courts answerable to their own domestic laws and not foreign courts.
At the end of 2021, there were nearly 10 million immigrants in the UK, just under 15% the population. The last year I've seen figures for, asylum was granted to under 15,000 cases.
Asylum cases are a small amount of the UK's migration story. Foreign judges deciding on asylum policy may or may not be a good thing, but it's very little to do with the country's migration policy.
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
It was set up for that purpose, but like the League of Nations it failed in its purpose.
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
Canada and New Zealand aren't ECHR members because they're not in Europe.
(Of course, Australia IS in Europe, as demonstrated by Eurovision.)
Why does it matter that the UK is in Europe?
I care far more about liberalism, which we share with our common law cousins, than continental geography, which is nothing more than geography.
Yes, that’s like saying we must be in NAFTA because we share the Gulf Stream
The more I think about it, the more absurd the ECHR becomes. Abort
At the end of 2021, there were nearly 10 million immigrants in the UK, just under 15% the population. The last year I've seen figures for, asylum was granted to under 15,000 cases.
Asylum cases are a small amount of the UK's migration story. Foreign judges deciding on asylum policy may or may not be a good thing, but it's very little to do with the country's migration policy.
We should welcome the world's best and brightest with open arms to be able to get visas and fly to the UK safely and legally on their own merit.
We should not welcome people smugglers sending people to watery graves in the Channel because of deadly and unsafe Channel crossings.
Why would you want to conflate the two? People coming into this country is not a problem, people drowning at sea is.
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
It was set up for that purpose, but like the League of Nations it failed in its purpose.
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
Canada and New Zealand aren't ECHR members because they're not in Europe.
(Of course, Australia IS in Europe, as demonstrated by Eurovision.)
Why does it matter that the UK is in Europe?
I care far more about liberalism, which we share with our common law cousins, than continental geography, which is nothing more than geography.
At the end of 2021, there were nearly 10 million immigrants in the UK, just under 15% the population. The last year I've seen figures for, asylum was granted to under 15,000 cases.
Asylum cases are a small amount of the UK's migration story. Foreign judges deciding on asylum policy may or may not be a good thing, but it's very little to do with the country's migration policy.
We should welcome the world's best and brightest with open arms to be able to get visas and fly to the UK safely and legally on their own merit.
We should not welcome people smugglers sending people to watery graves in the Channel because of deadly and unsafe Channel crossings.
Why would you want to conflate the two? People coming into this country is not a problem, people drowning at sea is.
I am not conflating the two. I am doing the opposite of conflating -- deflating? -- the two. I was responding to other posters in this thread who were conflating the two.
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
It was set up for that purpose, but like the League of Nations it failed in its purpose.
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
Canada and New Zealand aren't ECHR members because they're not in Europe.
(Of course, Australia IS in Europe, as demonstrated by Eurovision.)
Why does it matter that the UK is in Europe?
I care far more about liberalism, which we share with our common law cousins, than continental geography, which is nothing more than geography.
Tens of thousands of years of shared history?
QTWAIN.
We share more history with our common law cousins around the world than Russia and other nations that were and are a part of the ECHR.
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
It was set up for that purpose, but like the League of Nations it failed in its purpose.
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
Canada and New Zealand aren't ECHR members because they're not in Europe.
(Of course, Australia IS in Europe, as demonstrated by Eurovision.)
Why does it matter that the UK is in Europe?
I care far more about liberalism, which we share with our common law cousins, than continental geography, which is nothing more than geography.
Tens of thousands of years of shared history?
QTWAIN.
We share more history with our common law cousins around the world than Russia and other nations that were and are a part of the ECHR.
At the end of 2021, there were nearly 10 million immigrants in the UK, just under 15% the population. The last year I've seen figures for, asylum was granted to under 15,000 cases.
Asylum cases are a small amount of the UK's migration story. Foreign judges deciding on asylum policy may or may not be a good thing, but it's very little to do with the country's migration policy.
We should welcome the world's best and brightest with open arms to be able to get visas and fly to the UK safely and legally on their own merit.
We should not welcome people smugglers sending people to watery graves in the Channel because of deadly and unsafe Channel crossings.
Why would you want to conflate the two? People coming into this country is not a problem, people drowning at sea is.
I am not conflating the two. I am doing the opposite of conflating -- deflating? -- the two. I was responding to other posters in this thread who were conflating the two.
I've not seen any poster in the thread conflate asylum with migration apart from yourself then, anyone who might do is silly.
Safe, legal immigration of people flying into this country via a jet with a ticket and a visa is not a problem.
What it boils down to is this: liberal elitists support open borders. Most other people don't. But the liberal elitists think their view should prevail over everyone else's because they know best.
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
It was set up for that purpose, but like the League of Nations it failed in its purpose.
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
Canada and New Zealand aren't ECHR members because they're not in Europe.
(Of course, Australia IS in Europe, as demonstrated by Eurovision.)
Why does it matter that the UK is in Europe?
I care far more about liberalism, which we share with our common law cousins, than continental geography, which is nothing more than geography.
Tens of thousands of years of shared history?
QTWAIN.
We share more history with our common law cousins around the world than Russia and other nations that were and are a part of the ECHR.
No thanks, the world is globalised and far more than our tiny continent. I grew up in Melbourne, Victoria, and I would suggest Melbournians have far more common history and common judicial history with us than Muscovites do. So try again, why would we have had our legal system tied to Moscow, but not Melbourne?
At the end of 2021, there were nearly 10 million immigrants in the UK, just under 15% the population. The last year I've seen figures for, asylum was granted to under 15,000 cases.
Asylum cases are a small amount of the UK's migration story. Foreign judges deciding on asylum policy may or may not be a good thing, but it's very little to do with the country's migration policy.
We should welcome the world's best and brightest with open arms to be able to get visas and fly to the UK safely and legally on their own merit.
We should not welcome people smugglers sending people to watery graves in the Channel because of deadly and unsafe Channel crossings.
Why would you want to conflate the two? People coming into this country is not a problem, people drowning at sea is.
I am not conflating the two. I am doing the opposite of conflating -- deflating? -- the two. I was responding to other posters in this thread who were conflating the two.
I've not seen any poster in the thread conflate asylum with migration apart from yourself then, anyone who might do is silly.
I refer you to Leon's 12:13 post above.
I can understand you might not have seen this initially as you're probably sensible enough just to skip straight over Leon's posts.
At the end of 2021, there were nearly 10 million immigrants in the UK, just under 15% the population. The last year I've seen figures for, asylum was granted to under 15,000 cases.
Asylum cases are a small amount of the UK's migration story. Foreign judges deciding on asylum policy may or may not be a good thing, but it's very little to do with the country's migration policy.
We should welcome the world's best and brightest with open arms to be able to get visas and fly to the UK safely and legally on their own merit.
We should not welcome people smugglers sending people to watery graves in the Channel because of deadly and unsafe Channel crossings.
Why would you want to conflate the two? People coming into this country is not a problem, people drowning at sea is.
I am not conflating the two. I am doing the opposite of conflating -- deflating? -- the two. I was responding to other posters in this thread who were conflating the two.
I've not seen any poster in the thread conflate asylum with migration apart from yourself then, anyone who might do is silly.
I refer you to Leon's 12:13 post above.
I can understand you might not have seen this initially as you're probably sensible enough just to skip straight over Leon's posts.
There was someone else as well on page 7.
OK I stand corrected, my apologies. I wasn't online for page 7 and haven't read it.
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
It was set up for that purpose, but like the League of Nations it failed in its purpose.
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
Canada and New Zealand aren't ECHR members because they're not in Europe.
(Of course, Australia IS in Europe, as demonstrated by Eurovision.)
Why does it matter that the UK is in Europe?
I care far more about liberalism, which we share with our common law cousins, than continental geography, which is nothing more than geography.
Tens of thousands of years of shared history?
QTWAIN.
We share more history with our common law cousins around the world than Russia and other nations that were and are a part of the ECHR.
No thanks, the world is globalised and far more than our tiny continent. I grew up in Melbourne, Victoria, and I would suggest Melbournians have far more common history and common judicial history with us than Muscovites do. So try again, why would we have had our legal system tied to Moscow, but not Melbourne?
Please put the goalposts back where you found them. We were talking about Europe. You're now picking one of the most remote parts of Europe from us. Obviously our shared history is greater with western Europe.
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
It was set up for that purpose, but like the League of Nations it failed in its purpose.
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
Canada and New Zealand aren't ECHR members because they're not in Europe.
(Of course, Australia IS in Europe, as demonstrated by Eurovision.)
Why does it matter that the UK is in Europe?
I care far more about liberalism, which we share with our common law cousins, than continental geography, which is nothing more than geography.
Tens of thousands of years of shared history?
QTWAIN.
We share more history with our common law cousins around the world than Russia and other nations that were and are a part of the ECHR.
No thanks, the world is globalised and far more than our tiny continent. I grew up in Melbourne, Victoria, and I would suggest Melbournians have far more common history and common judicial history with us than Muscovites do. So try again, why would we have had our legal system tied to Moscow, but not Melbourne?
Please put the goalposts back where you found them. We were talking about Europe. You're now picking one of the most remote parts of Europe from us. Obviously our shared history is greater with western Europe.
No, its not. Aussies, Canadians etc descend from that same shared history as we do, and their legal system evolved with ours in a common law manner very different to our continental neighbours.
So why should our judicial system be tied to non-common law continental systems, that span not just Western Europe, rather than being compared with our own common law cousins that we evolved with and they evolved with us?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing other than an accident of geography that is utterly meaningless and small-sighted in the 21st century.
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
It was set up for that purpose, but like the League of Nations it failed in its purpose.
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
Canada and New Zealand aren't ECHR members because they're not in Europe.
(Of course, Australia IS in Europe, as demonstrated by Eurovision.)
Why does it matter that the UK is in Europe?
I care far more about liberalism, which we share with our common law cousins, than continental geography, which is nothing more than geography.
Tens of thousands of years of shared history?
QTWAIN.
We share more history with our common law cousins around the world than Russia and other nations that were and are a part of the ECHR.
No thanks, the world is globalised and far more than our tiny continent. I grew up in Melbourne, Victoria, and I would suggest Melbournians have far more common history and common judicial history with us than Muscovites do. So try again, why would we have had our legal system tied to Moscow, but not Melbourne?
In what sense is our legal system “tied to Moscow”? And who is (are you?) suggesting tying it to Melbourne’s?
At the end of 2021, there were nearly 10 million immigrants in the UK, just under 15% the population. The last year I've seen figures for, asylum was granted to under 15,000 cases.
Asylum cases are a small amount of the UK's migration story. Foreign judges deciding on asylum policy may or may not be a good thing, but it's very little to do with the country's migration policy.
We should welcome the world's best and brightest with open arms to be able to get visas and fly to the UK safely and legally on their own merit.
We should not welcome people smugglers sending people to watery graves in the Channel because of deadly and unsafe Channel crossings.
Why would you want to conflate the two? People coming into this country is not a problem, people drowning at sea is.
I am not conflating the two. I am doing the opposite of conflating -- deflating? -- the two. I was responding to other posters in this thread who were conflating the two.
They are conflated by the people themselves. Economic migrants falsely claim asylum. Etc
What it boils down to is this: liberal elitists support open borders. Most other people don't. But the liberal elitists think their view should prevail over everyone else's because they know best.
That's not what it boils down to at all, it's just convenient for your position to present it that way. Liberal elitists in this context seems to be your personal preferred bogeyman to whom you can ascribe Ill motivation to any opposed position to undermine it.
I don't care about immigration at all but I recognise a majority do care about it and have a right to restrict it if they want. I also think the tendency to present any level of restriction as unfair is clearly unreasonable, it is not inherently wrong for nations to place barriers on who can come to said nation (and people do do that when they object to labels like migrants, as many are indeed migrants).
Concerns about the Rwandan policy from a legal, practical or moral perspective might be quite distinct, and not all of it is a plot by those wanting open borders.
I'm inclined to dislike it, but that is irrespective of whether it is declared lawful or not, and securing an open border has no part of the calculation.
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
It was set up for that purpose, but like the League of Nations it failed in its purpose.
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
Canada and New Zealand aren't ECHR members because they're not in Europe.
(Of course, Australia IS in Europe, as demonstrated by Eurovision.)
Why does it matter that the UK is in Europe?
I care far more about liberalism, which we share with our common law cousins, than continental geography, which is nothing more than geography.
Tens of thousands of years of shared history?
QTWAIN.
We share more history with our common law cousins around the world than Russia and other nations that were and are a part of the ECHR.
No thanks, the world is globalised and far more than our tiny continent. I grew up in Melbourne, Victoria, and I would suggest Melbournians have far more common history and common judicial history with us than Muscovites do. So try again, why would we have had our legal system tied to Moscow, but not Melbourne?
Please put the goalposts back where you found them. We were talking about Europe. You're now picking one of the most remote parts of Europe from us. Obviously our shared history is greater with western Europe.
And thus you move the goalposts from “Europe” to “Western Europe”
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
It was set up for that purpose, but like the League of Nations it failed in its purpose.
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
Canada and New Zealand aren't ECHR members because they're not in Europe.
(Of course, Australia IS in Europe, as demonstrated by Eurovision.)
Why does it matter that the UK is in Europe?
I care far more about liberalism, which we share with our common law cousins, than continental geography, which is nothing more than geography.
Tens of thousands of years of shared history?
QTWAIN.
We share more history with our common law cousins around the world than Russia and other nations that were and are a part of the ECHR.
No thanks, the world is globalised and far more than our tiny continent. I grew up in Melbourne, Victoria, and I would suggest Melbournians have far more common history and common judicial history with us than Muscovites do. So try again, why would we have had our legal system tied to Moscow, but not Melbourne?
In what sense is our legal system “tied to Moscow”? And who is (are you?) suggesting tying it to Melbourne’s?
Until a couple of months ago, Moscow and Manchester were both part of the same ECHR, but Melbourne wasn't. Until a couple of months ago, Saint Petersburg and Saint Helens were, but not Saint Kilda.
No I'm not suggesting that we tie our legal system to Australia's, I'm saying we shouldn't tie our legal system to any foreign countries and that our Supreme Court should be the highest court in the land and answerable solely to Parliament. Which is good enough for a plethora of other countries that don't have any foreign courts.
David Cameron is committed to “breaking the link” between the European court of human rights and the supreme court to ensure the UK’s highest court remains the “ultimate arbiter of human rights”, Downing Street has said.
What it boils down to is this: liberal elitists support open borders. Most other people don't. But the liberal elitists think their view should prevail over everyone else's because they know best.
I don’t think it boils down to that, at all, Andy.
Lots of businesses regard borders as an impediment to them lowering wages. They’re not really on the liberal/authoritarian - or any other political spectrum. They’re just motivated by profit and happy to screw over their fellow countrymen. They’re not interested in paying the taxes necessary to fund the necessary house building, or public services. It’s that logic that has held sway in the Tory party for a long time. It’s a case of privatising the profits and dumping the costs onto wider society.
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
It was set up for that purpose, but like the League of Nations it failed in its purpose.
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
Canada and New Zealand aren't ECHR members because they're not in Europe.
(Of course, Australia IS in Europe, as demonstrated by Eurovision.)
Why does it matter that the UK is in Europe?
I care far more about liberalism, which we share with our common law cousins, than continental geography, which is nothing more than geography.
Tens of thousands of years of shared history?
QTWAIN.
We share more history with our common law cousins around the world than Russia and other nations that were and are a part of the ECHR.
No thanks, the world is globalised and far more than our tiny continent. I grew up in Melbourne, Victoria, and I would suggest Melbournians have far more common history and common judicial history with us than Muscovites do. So try again, why would we have had our legal system tied to Moscow, but not Melbourne?
In what sense is our legal system “tied to Moscow”? And who is (are you?) suggesting tying it to Melbourne’s?
Until a couple of months ago, Moscow and Manchester were both part of the same ECHR, but Melbourne wasn't. Until a couple of months ago, Saint Petersburg and Saint Helens were, but not Saint Kilda.
No I'm not suggesting that we tie our legal system to Australia's, I'm saying we shouldn't tie our legal system to any foreign countries and that our Supreme Court should be the highest court in the land and answerable solely to Parliament. Which is good enough for a plethora of other countries that don't have any foreign courts.
There’s no purpose to it, though.
The rights in the ECHR, which were drafted by David Maxwell Fyfe, should be uncontroversial to any liberal. Replacing it with a British Bill of Rights merely domiciles something which has worked fine for 60 years.
Unless you are suggesting there are rights you wish to deprecate?
Otherwise, what you’re suggesting is that the UK eject itself and leave the rest of the Council of Europe to it. It would be another dent in the European liberal fabric.
You profess to be a liberal, but you have zero appreciation of liberal theory or indeed practice.
David Cameron is committed to “breaking the link” between the European court of human rights and the supreme court to ensure the UK’s highest court remains the “ultimate arbiter of human rights”, Downing Street has said.
Well hindsight shows us that Cameron was disastrously beholden to nut-jobs on the Tory backbenchers and in the gutter press.
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
It was set up for that purpose, but like the League of Nations it failed in its purpose.
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
Canada and New Zealand aren't ECHR members because they're not in Europe.
(Of course, Australia IS in Europe, as demonstrated by Eurovision.)
Why does it matter that the UK is in Europe?
I care far more about liberalism, which we share with our common law cousins, than continental geography, which is nothing more than geography.
Tens of thousands of years of shared history?
QTWAIN.
We share more history with our common law cousins around the world than Russia and other nations that were and are a part of the ECHR.
No thanks, the world is globalised and far more than our tiny continent. I grew up in Melbourne, Victoria, and I would suggest Melbournians have far more common history and common judicial history with us than Muscovites do. So try again, why would we have had our legal system tied to Moscow, but not Melbourne?
In what sense is our legal system “tied to Moscow”? And who is (are you?) suggesting tying it to Melbourne’s?
Until a couple of months ago, Moscow and Manchester were both part of the same ECHR, but Melbourne wasn't. Until a couple of months ago, Saint Petersburg and Saint Helens were, but not Saint Kilda.
No I'm not suggesting that we tie our legal system to Australia's, I'm saying we shouldn't tie our legal system to any foreign countries and that our Supreme Court should be the highest court in the land and answerable solely to Parliament. Which is good enough for a plethora of other countries that don't have any foreign courts.
There’s no purpose to it, though.
The rights in the ECHR, which were drafted by David Maxwell Fyfe, should be uncontroversial to any liberal. Replacing it with a British Bill of Rights merely domiciles something which has worked fine for 60 years.
Unless you are suggesting there are rights you wish to deprecate?
Otherwise, what you’re suggesting is that the UK eject itself and leave the rest of the Council of Europe to it. It would be another dent in the European liberal fabric.
You profess to be a liberal, but you have zero appreciation of liberal theory or indeed practice.
I absolutely respect the rights in the ECHR but they ought to be domesticated, yes. It isn't working fine and hasn't been for some time, the ECtHR trying to insist that prisoners get the vote was another problem in the past.
I couldn't care less if the UK leaves the Council of Europe. I couldn't care less about the "European" liberal fabric, I believe in global liberal fabric. The liberalism we share with nations around the planet, rather than just an accident of geography that is immaterial.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
ID cards for all, and incentives (including a route to citizenship) for those who shop employers of illegal immigrants and people smugglers.
Illegal immigrants are already excluded from the benefits system, with no route to employment the incentives for people to try to enter illegally would be very much reduced.
There is merit in that and I am happy to have an ID card but not sure it is politically possible at present
It seems a little illogical to me to change the entire British way of life in order to hamper the course of illegal migration. It is surely simpler to (politely and kindly) prevent illegal migration in the first place.
As I have said before, and I believe others here have agreed the idea has merit, all British asylum claims should be processed overseas. The successful applicants would be brought to Britain and assisted in their new lives. Those who arrived in the UK to claim assylum would be taken to the nearest overseas claim centre. Those who arrived hoping to evade any authority at all would be swiftly deported. Thus no more dangerous boats, no more trafficking.
How does ID cards "change the entire British way of life"? I mean genuine question. Do you have a driver's licence?
There's a certain irony that those most in favour of ID being required to vote, also seem to be the most in favour of not using ID cards as a way of reducing the demand for illegal immigration.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
ID cards for all, and incentives (including a route to citizenship) for those who shop employers of illegal immigrants and people smugglers.
Illegal immigrants are already excluded from the benefits system, with no route to employment the incentives for people to try to enter illegally would be very much reduced.
There is merit in that and I am happy to have an ID card but not sure it is politically possible at present
It seems a little illogical to me to change the entire British way of life in order to hamper the course of illegal migration. It is surely simpler to (politely and kindly) prevent illegal migration in the first place.
As I have said before, and I believe others here have agreed the idea has merit, all British asylum claims should be processed overseas. The successful applicants would be brought to Britain and assisted in their new lives. Those who arrived in the UK to claim assylum would be taken to the nearest overseas claim centre. Those who arrived hoping to evade any authority at all would be swiftly deported. Thus no more dangerous boats, no more trafficking.
How does ID cards "change the entire British way of life"? I mean genuine question. Do you have a driver's licence?
There's a certain irony that those most in favour of ID being required to vote, also seem to be the most in favour of not using ID cards as a way of reducing the demand for illegal immigration.
You’ve been told before that it is not ironic in the slightest. There are lots of things where you require ID even though we don’t have ID cards.
Personally, I wouldn’t be bothered by ID cards. But, I would not be happy if they weren’t used to clamp down on things like benefit fraud and illegal immigration.
This was Theresa May on the ECHR during the referendum campaign:
The ECHR can bind the hands of Parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights. So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this. If we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its Court.
I can already hear certain people saying this means I’m against human rights. But human rights were not invented in 1950, when the Convention was drafted, or in 1998, when it was incorporated into our law through the Human Rights Act. This is Great Britain – the country of Magna Carta, Parliamentary democracy and the fairest courts in the world – and we can protect human rights ourselves in a way that doesn’t jeopardise national security or bind the hands of Parliament. A true British Bill of Rights – decided by Parliament and amended by Parliament – would protect not only the rights set out in the Convention but could include traditional British rights not protected by the ECHR, such as the right to trial by jury.
AIUI, it was only relatively recently that the UK was a full member of the ECHR, and we did fine before then. (Tony Blair?) So I have little issue with us leaving.
However, I do want to ensure that there is a mechanism in place for individual citizens to appeal acts of the Executive to, should they exceed their powers.
If we leave the ECHR only to leave a hole where citizens are unable to challenge arbitrary decisions of the government, then that's a problem.
The fundamental issue here is that the Executive (and those who work for it, such as Civil Servants and the Police) must be subject to the laws of the land (including Common Law, as well as whatever Bill of Rights is eventually enumerated). This is particularly important, because the government does many things (such as chucking people on planes to Rwanda) which are not specifically enumerated in legislation.
The US has a very robust (if imperfect in other ways) Judicial Branch, which is much more powerful than our own.
This was Theresa May on the ECHR during the referendum campaign:
The ECHR can bind the hands of Parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights. So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this. If we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its Court.
I can already hear certain people saying this means I’m against human rights. But human rights were not invented in 1950, when the Convention was drafted, or in 1998, when it was incorporated into our law through the Human Rights Act. This is Great Britain – the country of Magna Carta, Parliamentary democracy and the fairest courts in the world – and we can protect human rights ourselves in a way that doesn’t jeopardise national security or bind the hands of Parliament. A true British Bill of Rights – decided by Parliament and amended by Parliament – would protect not only the rights set out in the Convention but could include traditional British rights not protected by the ECHR, such as the right to trial by jury.
AIUI, it was only relatively recently that the UK was a full member of the ECHR, and we did fine before then. (Tony Blair?) So I have little issue with us leaving.
However, I do want to ensure that there is a mechanism in place for individual citizens to appeal acts of the Executive to, should they exceed their powers.
If we leave the ECHR only to leave a hole where citizens are unable to challenge arbitrary decisions of the government, then that's a problem.
The fundamental issue here is that the Executive (and those who work for it, such as Civil Servants and the Police) must be subject to the laws of the land (including Common Law, as well as whatever Bill of Rights is eventually enumerated). This is particularly important, because the government does many things (such as chucking people on planes to Rwanda) which are not specifically enumerated in legislation.
The US has a very robust (if imperfect in other ways) Judicial Branch, which is much more powerful than our own.
But they had a right to challenge, via the courts in the UK. It's just the court in Europe had a different opinion.
This was Theresa May on the ECHR during the referendum campaign:
The ECHR can bind the hands of Parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights. So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this. If we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its Court.
I can already hear certain people saying this means I’m against human rights. But human rights were not invented in 1950, when the Convention was drafted, or in 1998, when it was incorporated into our law through the Human Rights Act. This is Great Britain – the country of Magna Carta, Parliamentary democracy and the fairest courts in the world – and we can protect human rights ourselves in a way that doesn’t jeopardise national security or bind the hands of Parliament. A true British Bill of Rights – decided by Parliament and amended by Parliament – would protect not only the rights set out in the Convention but could include traditional British rights not protected by the ECHR, such as the right to trial by jury.
AIUI, it was only relatively recently that the UK was a full member of the ECHR, and we did fine before then. (Tony Blair?) So I have little issue with us leaving.
However, I do want to ensure that there is a mechanism in place for individual citizens to appeal acts of the Executive to, should they exceed their powers.
If we leave the ECHR only to leave a hole where citizens are unable to challenge arbitrary decisions of the government, then that's a problem.
The fundamental issue here is that the Executive (and those who work for it, such as Civil Servants and the Police) must be subject to the laws of the land (including Common Law, as well as whatever Bill of Rights is eventually enumerated). This is particularly important, because the government does many things (such as chucking people on planes to Rwanda) which are not specifically enumerated in legislation.
The US has a very robust (if imperfect in other ways) Judicial Branch, which is much more powerful than our own.
But they had a right to challenge, via the courts in the UK. It's just the court in Europe had a different opinion.
"They"?
I am talking more broadly about us leaving the ECHR, not specifically about the Rwanda case.
This was Theresa May on the ECHR during the referendum campaign:
The ECHR can bind the hands of Parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights. So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this. If we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its Court.
I can already hear certain people saying this means I’m against human rights. But human rights were not invented in 1950, when the Convention was drafted, or in 1998, when it was incorporated into our law through the Human Rights Act. This is Great Britain – the country of Magna Carta, Parliamentary democracy and the fairest courts in the world – and we can protect human rights ourselves in a way that doesn’t jeopardise national security or bind the hands of Parliament. A true British Bill of Rights – decided by Parliament and amended by Parliament – would protect not only the rights set out in the Convention but could include traditional British rights not protected by the ECHR, such as the right to trial by jury.
AIUI, it was only relatively recently that the UK was a full member of the ECHR, and we did fine before then. (Tony Blair?) So I have little issue with us leaving.
However, I do want to ensure that there is a mechanism in place for individual citizens to appeal acts of the Executive to, should they exceed their powers.
If we leave the ECHR only to leave a hole where citizens are unable to challenge arbitrary decisions of the government, then that's a problem.
The fundamental issue here is that the Executive (and those who work for it, such as Civil Servants and the Police) must be subject to the laws of the land (including Common Law, as well as whatever Bill of Rights is eventually enumerated). This is particularly important, because the government does many things (such as chucking people on planes to Rwanda) which are not specifically enumerated in legislation.
The US has a very robust (if imperfect in other ways) Judicial Branch, which is much more powerful than our own.
But they had a right to challenge, via the courts in the UK. It's just the court in Europe had a different opinion.
"They"?
I am talking more broadly about us leaving the ECHR, not specifically about the Rwanda case.
The ECHR is not a court of first instance. Its removal would only remove an extra right of appeal, of which there are already several.
This was Theresa May on the ECHR during the referendum campaign:
The ECHR can bind the hands of Parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights. So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this. If we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its Court.
I can already hear certain people saying this means I’m against human rights. But human rights were not invented in 1950, when the Convention was drafted, or in 1998, when it was incorporated into our law through the Human Rights Act. This is Great Britain – the country of Magna Carta, Parliamentary democracy and the fairest courts in the world – and we can protect human rights ourselves in a way that doesn’t jeopardise national security or bind the hands of Parliament. A true British Bill of Rights – decided by Parliament and amended by Parliament – would protect not only the rights set out in the Convention but could include traditional British rights not protected by the ECHR, such as the right to trial by jury.
AIUI, it was only relatively recently that the UK was a full member of the ECHR, and we did fine before then. (Tony Blair?) So I have little issue with us leaving.
However, I do want to ensure that there is a mechanism in place for individual citizens to appeal acts of the Executive to, should they exceed their powers.
If we leave the ECHR only to leave a hole where citizens are unable to challenge arbitrary decisions of the government, then that's a problem.
The fundamental issue here is that the Executive (and those who work for it, such as Civil Servants and the Police) must be subject to the laws of the land (including Common Law, as well as whatever Bill of Rights is eventually enumerated). This is particularly important, because the government does many things (such as chucking people on planes to Rwanda) which are not specifically enumerated in legislation.
The US has a very robust (if imperfect in other ways) Judicial Branch, which is much more powerful than our own.
But they had a right to challenge, via the courts in the UK. It's just the court in Europe had a different opinion.
"They"?
I am talking more broadly about us leaving the ECHR, not specifically about the Rwanda case.
The ECHR is not a court of first instance. Its removal would only remove an extra right of appeal, of which there are already several.
Now, I am no expert, but I'm not sure that's 100% true. There was no case in a British Court in Dudgeon v the United Kingdom, which concerned the actions of the RUC in interrogating an individual over their homosexuality.
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
But even though Labour says it doesn’t have one they still say it. So what is Labour supposed to do?
Emphasise:
1. The failure of the policy because it’s Ill thought out and fundamentally unserious 2. The waste of public resources on a gimmic when it could have been spent on the needs of hard pressed British voters
What is Labour's policy on immigration? until that is explained Boris will win because "at least he is trying to do something"
Wrong. And Big G repeated this same daft line of the governments earlier.
For years this government has had supporters and focus groups screaming at them to sort this out. They havn’t had a policy that will work. This still isn’t a working policy either, it’s a contrivance to disguise they havn’t a clue what works. It’s costs to the nation at this time are scary, wether it works depends on it acting like a deterrent - which every single one of us knows it won’t deter anyone.
If people wish to be in government they have to come up with working policys, not put this unworkable junk out there and say “we are trying to do something, suggest something that works then.”
It’s THEIR job to come up with something that works if they wish to remain in power. That’s how it’s always worked, and that’s how it’s working here.
Whilst you may be right again I repeat to the "average" voter BJ is seen to be doing something - The current asylum system is costing the taxpayer £1.5 billion a year, the highest amount in over two decades.
How long can you pretend you are getting somewhere with a problem before getting found out and your credibility comes crashing. This is why it didn’t go to commons vote, because the back benchers saw it wasn’t going to work and be expensive disaster so would have said no.
Boris doesn't have any credibility - he will keep on and on blaming other people such as Labour for its non-working
There will be only a certain amount of road in that approach. The truth is a non solution is all they have because they don’t as yet have a solution.
Sometimes, like the migrations during the industrial revolution, there is nothing you can do about what is happening, what peoples needs and wants are. The deterrent factor of this was never going to work, the UK this year is even more a flame calling the moths than it was last year and year before.
Good post - agree with it but until the Rwanda situation is given a chance to work and then shows that it doesn't work then Labour are on a hiding to nothing
😆 why would they be? It’s only governments, especially those in longer than a decade, who struggle when government are not solving problems.
If it was May 21 I’d concede this fiasco wouldn’t hurt the government as much as it’s about to, but it’s a different blame game when your credibility is rock bottom.
Are the ECHR Tories in disguise? There would have been a lot of cheers in Number 10 tonight.
Why? Every voter in the land knows there was only 4 people on the plane before ECHR stepped in. The fault lies squarely with a government who have entered this far into this without a clear idea who they can and can’t put into this system. 🙂
So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.
It hasn't happened yet, if it isn't happening it won't deter people.
If it does happen, then it will deter people.
Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.
The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
I supported you yesterday Barty, on NIP, but you posted there is ridiculous. The UK plan is not the same as Australian system, the Australian system didn’t work as well as you claim, and the problem the UK is facing on illegal migration is different.
At least concede those three points, before building a case in favour.
The Australian system did work as well as I claim, there hasn't been a single death by drowning from illegal boat crossings since the system was put in place. That is an incredible achievement, if we could achieve the same in the UK then great.
The plan is not the same, but it could be, if implemented properly. But to work it means that virtually all irregular boat crossings end up in Rwanda, which would halt the irregular boat crossings, rather than none of them or an inconsequential proportion of them.
Stu from Romford just explained it better than I can why this cannot work here. In fact a lot of people have, and in a way they are actually trying to help the people who arn’t listening, like the stuff you are posting. We arn’t trying to hurt anyone or play politics here, we are just trying to get the Penny to drop for you, don’t use Oz as example to the success this could be.
I’ll have one more go. A cold shower of the raw stats.
3,127 people were sent to Papua New Guinea/ Nauru since 2013 at cost to Australian taxpayer of AUS$10 billion. £1.7m per person.
Last year, 28,526 crossed the channel in small boats.
Patel herself has pointed out the two schemes are not the same. Ours isn’t offshore processing to prevent a trip, ours is old school colonialism to deter a trip.
How do you see this changing peoples minds about coming here? Do you really genuinely believe it will make any great number pause and rethink?
FFS the numbers since 2013 are diminished by the fact that the crossings all-but stopped after the policy came into force, because the policy worked. What part of that are you struggling to understand?
The figures to look at for the policy aren't the post-2013 stats, they're the pre-2013 ones as that shows what has been deterred. In 2012 over 17 thousand people crossed by boat there, a number comparable to the numbers crossing the Channel.
AUD$1billion per annum since then is an absolute bargain, compared to the estimated £1.5bn the UK is spending today and if you divide it "per person" with the 2012 figure of 17,000 then it isn't £1.7m per person, it is AUD$55,823 per person or GBP £33.7k per person. £33k per person deterred is a very different figure compared to the current costs.
And you think, given a chance this will change minds and act as a deterrent?
Of course.
In 2013 the Australian government said everyone who crossed by water like that would be sent offshore. They were having over 17k such crossings in 2012, from 2013 onwards only 3k have needed to be sent offshore in a decade, because the crossings stopped or voluntarily turned around rather than ending up offshore.
People won't want to cross the water to end up in Rwanda. If people picked up in the water or who land on the shore are sent immediately and automatically to Rwanda then nobody would cross by water anymore and the drownings would end, and next to nobody would need to go to Rwanda, because next to nobody would be crossing the water.
that is deluded. It is very funny to read 🙂 No one is going to think for one second they themselves will end up in Rwanda. You clearly have underestimated the mind of the people coming. Marx ended up here. Schopenhauer loved the Times of London. The pull of the promised land is such a fantasy for them. And The timing of this panicky introduction is not lost on me. Birds nesting in the cliffs, Halcyon days. There is about to be a flood - this scheme was always destined to be swept away by it.
Controversial Scheme or not, this issue, and all it’s knock on effects, is about to plunge the government into a crisis they are not ready for and can’t control.
So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.
It hasn't happened yet, if it isn't happening it won't deter people.
If it does happen, then it will deter people.
Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.
The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
I supported you yesterday Barty, on NIP, but you posted there is ridiculous. The UK plan is not the same as Australian system, the Australian system didn’t work as well as you claim, and the problem the UK is facing on illegal migration is different.
At least concede those three points, before building a case in favour.
The Australian system did work as well as I claim, there hasn't been a single death by drowning from illegal boat crossings since the system was put in place. That is an incredible achievement, if we could achieve the same in the UK then great.
The plan is not the same, but it could be, if implemented properly. But to work it means that virtually all irregular boat crossings end up in Rwanda, which would halt the irregular boat crossings, rather than none of them or an inconsequential proportion of them.
Stu from Romford just explained it better than I can why this cannot work here. In fact a lot of people have, and in a way they are actually trying to help the people who arn’t listening, like the stuff you are posting. We arn’t trying to hurt anyone or play politics here, we are just trying to get the Penny to drop for you, don’t use Oz as example to the success this could be.
I’ll have one more go. A cold shower of the raw stats.
3,127 people were sent to Papua New Guinea/ Nauru since 2013 at cost to Australian taxpayer of AUS$10 billion. £1.7m per person.
Last year, 28,526 crossed the channel in small boats.
Patel herself has pointed out the two schemes are not the same. Ours isn’t offshore processing to prevent a trip, ours is old school colonialism to deter a trip.
How do you see this changing peoples minds about coming here? Do you really genuinely believe it will make any great number pause and rethink?
FFS the numbers since 2013 are diminished by the fact that the crossings all-but stopped after the policy came into force, because the policy worked. What part of that are you struggling to understand?
The figures to look at for the policy aren't the post-2013 stats, they're the pre-2013 ones as that shows what has been deterred. In 2012 over 17 thousand people crossed by boat there, a number comparable to the numbers crossing the Channel.
AUD$1billion per annum since then is an absolute bargain, compared to the estimated £1.5bn the UK is spending today and if you divide it "per person" with the 2012 figure of 17,000 then it isn't £1.7m per person, it is AUD$55,823 per person or GBP £33.7k per person. £33k per person deterred is a very different figure compared to the current costs.
And you think, given a chance this will change minds and act as a deterrent?
Of course.
In 2013 the Australian government said everyone who crossed by water like that would be sent offshore. They were having over 17k such crossings in 2012, from 2013 onwards only 3k have needed to be sent offshore in a decade, because the crossings stopped or voluntarily turned around rather than ending up offshore.
People won't want to cross the water to end up in Rwanda. If people picked up in the water or who land on the shore are sent immediately and automatically to Rwanda then nobody would cross by water anymore and the drownings would end, and next to nobody would need to go to Rwanda, because next to nobody would be crossing the water.
that is deluded. It is very funny to read 🙂 No one is going to think for one second they themselves will end up in Rwanda. You clearly have underestimated the mind of the people coming. Marx ended up here. Schopenhauer loved the Times of London. The pull of the promised land is such a fantasy for them. And The timing of this panicky introduction is not lost on me. Birds nesting in the cliffs, Halcyon days. There is about to be a flood - this scheme was always destined to be swept away by it.
Controversial Scheme or not, this issue, and all it’s knock on effects, is about to plunge the government into a crisis they are not ready for and can’t control.
If every migrant crossing the Channel thought they would end up in Rwanda, then the number crossing would be zero.
If you want close to zero asylum claims by boat, then sending every asylum seeker who arrives by boat off to Rwanda works, and it is ridiculous to claim otherwise.
On the other hand, sending 0.1% of asylum seekers who arrive by boat off to Rwanda is not going to make a blind bit of difference.
The Australians implemented off shore processing of those people arriving by boat, and it cut numbers around 70-75%. While expensive, it has been effective.
If the UK implemented a similar system, I have little doubt it could achieve similar reductions in the number of people arriving by boat.
But it is equally important to realise that economic migrants entering the UK don't want to become asylum seekers. Becoming an asylum seeker is a "last resort". What you want to do is to illegally sneak into the country, and get a job for £9/hour working at a car wash in Romford, and worry about the future in the future. If no-one has any record of your entry or where you're from, you're very hard to evict.
This is why - of 750,000 illegal immigrants working in the UK, less than 100,000 are failed asylum seekers.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Rwandan policy, except that it is... what's the phrase... virtue signalling.
It is transporting a small number of migrants solely for the benefit of headlines, and that will make no difference to people coming by boat. And it deliberately ignores the fact that the vast, vast majority of illegal immigrants don't get caught on boats and don't claim asylum.
David Cameron is committed to “breaking the link” between the European court of human rights and the supreme court to ensure the UK’s highest court remains the “ultimate arbiter of human rights”, Downing Street has said.
Well hindsight shows us that Cameron was disastrously beholden to nut-jobs on the Tory backbenchers and in the gutter press.
Actually, hindsight shows us that Cameron was disastrously beholden to Europhile senior members of the civil service. If Cameron had thought for himself rather more about what could be achieved in his "renegotiation" - if Brussels had actually believed he would recommend people voted for Brexit - we might have achieved a form of associate EU membership...
David Cameron is committed to “breaking the link” between the European court of human rights and the supreme court to ensure the UK’s highest court remains the “ultimate arbiter of human rights”, Downing Street has said.
Well hindsight shows us that Cameron was disastrously beholden to nut-jobs on the Tory backbenchers and in the gutter press.
Actually, hindsight shows us that Cameron was disastrously beholden to Europhile senior members of the civil service. If Cameron had thought for himself rather more about what could be achieved in his "renegotiation" - if Brussels had actually believed he would recommend people voted for Brexit - we might have achieved a form of associate EU membership...
Fundamentally, the only thing that would have averted a clean (Brexit) break with the EU was some kind of Associate Membership.
The UK was already out on a limb. There was no appetite to make it even more of a special case.
But a new "status" that could also have worked for Norway and Iceland and maybe those other EU countries that would never join the Euro? That might have worked.
Are the ECHR Tories in disguise? There would have been a lot of cheers in Number 10 tonight.
Why? Every voter in the land knows there was only 4 people on the plane before ECHR stepped in. The fault lies squarely with a government who have entered this far into this without a clear idea who they can and can’t put into this system. 🙂
That's not the point, British law and due process is inconvenient for the government but its our due process not some unelected unaccountable body. High Court judgement of Justice Swift makes it clear this should be a matter of government policy.
Comments
You know it's gonna work for Con.
Labour will be back in 2027-2029 though. Con are drinking in the last chance saloon at the next election...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/14/pope-francis-ukraine-war-provoked-russian-troops
Vladimir Putin's Russia was a part of the ECHR at the turn of the year. What the hell has the ECHR actually achieved. Was Vladimir Putin's Russia part of the liberal European settlement? Give me a break.
The overall liberal order includes countries like Canada, New Zealand and Australia - none of whom are ECHR members, far more than it includes Russia.
That's why so many hurdles exist, it isn't a bug of the system.
(Of course, Australia IS in Europe, as demonstrated by Eurovision.)
Russia is a failure across multiple measures. Not sure why that entails scrapping the ECHR, except out of a spirit of judicial vandalism.
It has to go. It is a colonial hangover, like the Privy Council in London ruling on hangings in Jamaica
The Channel crossing is deadly, as is the journey to Australia by the boats that were being used, which is why the ALP implement the policy. If the policy is actually implemented, then it absolutely will work, and absolutely will be value for money, but it needs to be measured taking into account deterrence and not only by dividing the money spent by the extreme minority who weren't deterred.
I care far more about liberalism, which we share with our common law cousins, than continental geography, which is nothing more than geography.
The UK has laws of rights too, our courts should be answerable to our Parliament and our Parliament alone. Just as Canada, NZ, Australia etc all have courts answerable to their own domestic laws and not foreign courts.
Asylum cases are a small amount of the UK's migration story. Foreign judges deciding on asylum policy may or may not be a good thing, but it's very little to do with the country's migration policy.
The more I think about it, the more absurd the ECHR becomes. Abort
We should not welcome people smugglers sending people to watery graves in the Channel because of deadly and unsafe Channel crossings.
Why would you want to conflate the two? People coming into this country is not a problem, people drowning at sea is.
We share more history with our common law cousins around the world than Russia and other nations that were and are a part of the ECHR.
Safe, legal immigration of people flying into this country via a jet with a ticket and a visa is not a problem.
Unsafe, deadly, dinghy drownings are a problem.
I can understand you might not have seen this initially as you're probably sensible enough just to skip straight over Leon's posts.
There was someone else as well on page 7.
So why should our judicial system be tied to non-common law continental systems, that span not just Western Europe, rather than being compared with our own common law cousins that we evolved with and they evolved with us?
The fact we are in Europe is nothing other than an accident of geography that is utterly meaningless and small-sighted in the 21st century.
I don't care about immigration at all but I recognise a majority do care about it and have a right to restrict it if they want. I also think the tendency to present any level of restriction as unfair is clearly unreasonable, it is not inherently wrong for nations to place barriers on who can come to said nation (and people do do that when they object to labels like migrants, as many are indeed migrants).
Concerns about the Rwandan policy from a legal, practical or moral perspective might be quite distinct, and not all of it is a plot by those wanting open borders.
I'm inclined to dislike it, but that is irrespective of whether it is declared lawful or not, and securing an open border has no part of the calculation.
No I'm not suggesting that we tie our legal system to Australia's, I'm saying we shouldn't tie our legal system to any foreign countries and that our Supreme Court should be the highest court in the land and answerable solely to Parliament. Which is good enough for a plethora of other countries that don't have any foreign courts.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jun/01/david-cameron-european-court-of-human-rights
David Cameron is committed to “breaking the link” between the European court of human rights and the supreme court to ensure the UK’s highest court remains the “ultimate arbiter of human rights”, Downing Street has said.
Lots of businesses regard borders as an impediment to them lowering wages. They’re not really on the liberal/authoritarian - or any other political spectrum. They’re just motivated by profit and happy to screw over their fellow countrymen. They’re not interested in paying the taxes necessary to fund the necessary house building, or public services. It’s that logic that has held sway in the Tory party for a long time. It’s a case of privatising the profits and dumping the costs onto wider society.
The rights in the ECHR, which were drafted by David Maxwell Fyfe, should be uncontroversial to any liberal. Replacing it with a British Bill of Rights merely domiciles something which has worked fine for 60 years.
Unless you are suggesting there are rights you wish to deprecate?
Otherwise, what you’re suggesting is that the UK eject itself and leave the rest of the Council of Europe to it. It would be another dent in the European liberal fabric.
You profess to be a liberal, but you have zero appreciation of liberal theory or indeed practice.
I couldn't care less if the UK leaves the Council of Europe. I couldn't care less about the "European" liberal fabric, I believe in global liberal fabric. The liberalism we share with nations around the planet, rather than just an accident of geography that is immaterial.
🟩⬜⬜🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
First time in a long time.
Wordle 361 5/6
⬛🟩⬛🟨⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩⬛
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Personally, I wouldn’t be bothered by ID cards. But, I would not be happy if they weren’t used to clamp down on things like benefit fraud and illegal immigration.
However, I do want to ensure that there is a mechanism in place for individual citizens to appeal acts of the Executive to, should they exceed their powers.
If we leave the ECHR only to leave a hole where citizens are unable to challenge arbitrary decisions of the government, then that's a problem.
The fundamental issue here is that the Executive (and those who work for it, such as Civil Servants and the Police) must be subject to the laws of the land (including Common Law, as well as whatever Bill of Rights is eventually enumerated). This is particularly important, because the government does many things (such as chucking people on planes to Rwanda) which are not specifically enumerated in legislation.
The US has a very robust (if imperfect in other ways) Judicial Branch, which is much more powerful than our own.
I am talking more broadly about us leaving the ECHR, not specifically about the Rwanda case.
If it was May 21 I’d concede this fiasco wouldn’t hurt the government as much as it’s about to, but it’s a different blame game when your credibility is rock bottom.
Controversial Scheme or not, this issue, and all it’s knock on effects, is about to plunge the government into a crisis they are not ready for and can’t control.
If every migrant crossing the Channel thought they would end up in Rwanda, then the number crossing would be zero.
If you want close to zero asylum claims by boat, then sending every asylum seeker who arrives by boat off to Rwanda works, and it is ridiculous to claim otherwise.
On the other hand, sending 0.1% of asylum seekers who arrive by boat off to Rwanda is not going to make a blind bit of difference.
The Australians implemented off shore processing of those people arriving by boat, and it cut numbers around 70-75%. While expensive, it has been effective.
If the UK implemented a similar system, I have little doubt it could achieve similar reductions in the number of people arriving by boat.
But it is equally important to realise that economic migrants entering the UK don't want to become asylum seekers. Becoming an asylum seeker is a "last resort". What you want to do is to illegally sneak into the country, and get a job for £9/hour working at a car wash in Romford, and worry about the future in the future. If no-one has any record of your entry or where you're from, you're very hard to evict.
This is why - of 750,000 illegal immigrants working in the UK, less than 100,000 are failed asylum seekers.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the Rwandan policy, except that it is... what's the phrase... virtue signalling.
It is transporting a small number of migrants solely for the benefit of headlines, and that will make no difference to people coming by boat. And it deliberately ignores the fact that the vast, vast majority of illegal immigrants don't get caught on boats and don't claim asylum.
The UK was already out on a limb. There was no appetite to make it even more of a special case.
But a new "status" that could also have worked for Norway and Iceland and maybe those other EU countries that would never join the Euro? That might have worked.
Should Cameron have gone down that path?
Probably.
But that was a hard path.
High Court judgement of Justice Swift makes it clear this should be a matter of government policy.