Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

A Corrections Column – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited June 20 in General
imageA Corrections Column – politicalbetting.com

There are some well-worn memes doing the rounds following the ECHR decision yesterday on deportation flights to Rwanda. Many contain a number of factual errors and so, like the very busy editor of the Guardian’s Corrections section, let’s shed some light on these.

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939
    Thirst
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 2,939
    edited June 15
    Its all about reigniting the war of 2019 to fight the war of late autumn 22.
    Hes gonna cut n run if he survives tiverton etc
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 1,494
    Great photo. Proof positive that the ECHR are extra-terrestrials.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    edited June 15

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted

    By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
    If its so illegal then why is it already done by other nations? .
    Which ones ?
    Australia for starters.
    No.
    Australia operates a legally dubious regime of forcible detention and processing of asylum seekers, offshore in foreign jurisdictions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_Regional_Processing_Centre
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru_Regional_Processing_Centre

    It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.
    Correct. And that is a crucial distinction.
    Yes. The crucial distinction. That is the killer fact. It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.

    We know a lot of posters on here as bright, so it’s surprising the penny has not dropped for them yet on this killer fact.

    St Bart I know as very clued in and intelligent, so a surprise to me he went rushing towards comparisons with Oz scheme, when Patel herself distanced herself from that discredited scheme.

    https://www.times-series.co.uk/news/national/20069548.deal-rwanda-not-comparable-australias-offshore-policy-says-patel/

    Let’s deal with that killer fact, and open our friends on here to exactly why Charles and the Church so instinctively know this to be wrong.

    With “deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country” the UK government, in our name, are seeking to use Asylum seekers who have reached this country, for investing in Rwanda. They are very open about that. They believe that’s the right thing to do, on the economic development side, but also on the migration partnership - exploiting these asylum seekers in the same way as those chained in cargo holds during the slave trade.

    IT - IS - COLONIALISM.

    And Just go there for processing? At what point are they processed? At the point Patel’s government decides who is and who isn’t put on the plane, thats the moment of processing. Like choosing between slaves in a trade market.

    I’m no wishywashy lefty - and I am proud to stand with Prince Charles and the Church of England on this one.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,081
    Priti Patel confirming she will continue to piss money up the wall on empty flights.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,028
    Good piece @Cyclefree, as usual.

    We need more facts and fewer opinions from the media class, when discussing these issues.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 13,840
    Thoughtful piece. Thank-you.
  • Interesting piece Cyclefree.

    While the Convention is good and proper in general, I do not respect the Council of Europe or the European Court and we should not be afraid, if we deem it appropriate democratically, to leave the institution and have our own Supreme Court as the supreme arbiter of UK law.

    Plenty of civilised nations around the world, the likes of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Japan etc, are not members of the ECHR or the Council of Europe and have their rights maintained by a domestic legal system. There is no reason or principle that the UK can't do the same.

    While the Council of Europe suspended Russia's voting rights after the invasion of Crimea, Russia threatened to pull funding so they reinstated Russia's voting rights and Russia was a full member of the Council of Europe and the ECHR until earlier this year and the full scale invasion of Ukraine. Was Putin's Russia, a full member of the ECHR for nearly a quarter of a century under Putin, the embodiment of "the 20th century’s version of Magna Carta" as you call the ECHR in your point 2?

    The ECHR has failed to live up to its responsibilities and so did the Council of Europe. If we wish to preserve our liberties, then we need to hold our own Parliament and our own courts to good standards not offshore that responsibility to others who fail to do the job for us.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 17,046
    Gonna have to show the threader the red card. The idea that a bunch of thick english titled bandits invented anything in 1215 is embarrassing flag flapping nonsense, it is like saying the English invented the concept of speech or walking on one's hind legs and gave it to the world

    Biblical, Greek, Chinese and other precedents

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law
  • EPGEPG Posts: 4,188

    Was Putin's Russia, a full member of the ECHR for nearly a quarter of a century under Putin, the embodiment of "the 20th century’s version of Magna Carta" as you call the ECHR in your point 2?

    The actual, historical Magna Carta? I think so. The national myth one, probably not.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 16,562
    Good thread @Cyclefree, thanks. I think the principle of the ECHR appears good, but the sting lies with a supranational court having the final say. I would be happy to enshrine the ECHR into British law and make British courts responsible for ruling on whether it has been breached. What has happened seems a bit like a pre-reformation Papal edict.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    Scott_xP said:

    Priti Patel confirming she will continue to piss money up the wall on empty flights.

    There’s no u turn possible now, it would destroy them. It’s got to work for them now. She needs it legally water tight, packed flights, deterrent working, and popular with voters. It’s got to work or it’s the end of her political career.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 16,562

    Great photo. Proof positive that the ECHR are extra-terrestrials.

    It's a horrid building isn't it? Must be deeply depressing parking there every day. Looks like an avant garde 1970's shopping precinct in Milton Keynes.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    edited June 15
    Good knock about PMQs for those who missed it.

    Boris seemed under briefed and short of new material for this one.

    Ed Davey was the star turn.

    Starmer was brilliantly on message again, Rome wasn’t built in a day, stone by stone this country needs a change of government because of the governments economic record. That’s all he needs to do now in these PMQs. And that is the strategy Labour seem set on. His jokes were naff “the force is no longer with him and his Jedi mind tricks” who actually pays attention to all that Star Wars rubbish to understand that? Like Starmer watches Love Island. 😤 but he was clear and firm on Rail Strikes rebuttal.

    Was Ed Davey in election mode or what!!! Ed Davey was brilliant. And the fact Boris didn’t even dive to keep the shot out and conceded on Davey’s point showed he was ignorant to what Davey raised. If it was as tight in the campaign as next goal wins, A telling score in the by election.
  • If you want actually useful actions against these criminal gangs, I just do not understand how or why you would support the Rwanda policy.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,030
    Average Labour lead is 5%. Is that good or bad in mid-term after 12 years of Tory-led government?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2022
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 7,975

    If you want actually useful actions against these criminal gangs, I just do not understand how or why you would support the Rwanda policy.

    One of the issues surely is that the gangs are not acting in the UK - its through Europe where the action is needed?
    As a country we do our bit round the world, but on asylum we are seemingly trying to stop anyone claiming asylum in the UK at - blocking all routes. If we do that, we surely should be offering asylum much closer to the trouble zones, as we have done in the past. Otherwise its pretty hard to defend our countries actions.
  • Just a plea... can we please stop calling the 'black economy' "black" in these (hopefully) more enlightened times?

    How about 'underground economy' or 'hidden economy' or 'illicit economy'?
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    IshmaelZ said:

    Gonna have to show the threader the red card. The idea that a bunch of thick english titled bandits invented anything in 1215 is embarrassing flag flapping nonsense, it is like saying the English invented the concept of speech or walking on one's hind legs and gave it to the world

    Biblical, Greek, Chinese and other precedents

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law

    My Brother has a different take on Magna Carte, as not a one off but the Templars writing all the laws for a hundred years (if you have proof it’s not true it’s handy) and not inventing anything but based on older stuff, Magna Carta not new but based on older and widely used stuff. And afterwards when Freemasons came to power, like Oliver Cromwell and George Washington , they resurrected the Magna Carta and all the other Templar laws and principles.

    If you have any proof, rather than gut instinct, what my brother say is hogwash, by all means share 😉
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 1,468

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted

    By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
    If its so illegal then why is it already done by other nations? .
    Which ones ?
    Australia for starters.
    No.
    Australia operates a legally dubious regime of forcible detention and processing of asylum seekers, offshore in foreign jurisdictions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_Regional_Processing_Centre
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru_Regional_Processing_Centre

    It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.
    Correct. And that is a crucial distinction.
    Yes. The crucial distinction. That is the killer fact. It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.

    We know a lot of posters on here as bright, so it’s surprising the penny has not dropped for them yet on this killer fact.

    St Bart I know as very clued in and intelligent, so a surprise to me he went rushing towards comparisons with Oz scheme, when Patel herself distanced herself from that discredited scheme.

    https://www.times-series.co.uk/news/national/20069548.deal-rwanda-not-comparable-australias-offshore-policy-says-patel/

    Let’s deal with that killer fact, and open our friends on here to exactly why Charles and the Church so instinctively know this to be wrong.

    With “deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country” the UK government, in our name, are seeking to use Asylum seekers who have reached this country, for investing in Rwanda. They are very open about that. They believe that’s the right thing to do, on the economic development side, but also on the migration partnership - exploiting these asylum seekers in the same way as those chained in cargo holds during the slave trade.

    IT - IS - COLONIALISM.

    And Just go there for processing? At what point are they processed? At the point Patel’s government decides who is and who isn’t put on the plane, thats the moment of processing. Like choosing between slaves in a trade market.

    I’m no wishywashy lefty - and I am proud to stand with Prince Charles and the Church of England on this one.
    Yes, I was shocked when I twigged what the policy actually was. Saying to proven refugees “sod off to a third country” is…. novel.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,497

    Great photo. Proof positive that the ECHR are extra-terrestrials.

    It's a horrid building isn't it? Must be deeply depressing parking there every day. Looks like an avant garde 1970's shopping precinct in Milton Keynes.
    Why are the middle sections tied up with string?

  • eekeek Posts: 19,266

    Scott_xP said:

    Priti Patel confirming she will continue to piss money up the wall on empty flights.

    There’s no u turn possible now, it would destroy them. It’s got to work for them now. She needs it legally water tight, packed flights, deterrent working, and popular with voters. It’s got to work or it’s the end of her political career.
    Even if she can fill the flights it's not going to be enough of a deterrent because as @rcs1000 pointed out earlier the desire is not to get into the UK and claim asylum, the desire is to quietly get into the UK and disappear.

    So the boats across the channel will continue and Priti will continue to look useless while given whatever Farage's next version of UKIP is a starting point to attack Bozo and co from the right flank...
  • Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted

    By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
    If its so illegal then why is it already done by other nations? .
    Which ones ?
    Australia for starters.
    No.
    Australia operates a legally dubious regime of forcible detention and processing of asylum seekers, offshore in foreign jurisdictions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_Regional_Processing_Centre
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru_Regional_Processing_Centre

    It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.
    Correct. And that is a crucial distinction.
    Yes. The crucial distinction. That is the killer fact. It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.

    We know a lot of posters on here as bright, so it’s surprising the penny has not dropped for them yet on this killer fact.

    St Bart I know as very clued in and intelligent, so a surprise to me he went rushing towards comparisons with Oz scheme, when Patel herself distanced herself from that discredited scheme.

    https://www.times-series.co.uk/news/national/20069548.deal-rwanda-not-comparable-australias-offshore-policy-says-patel/

    Let’s deal with that killer fact, and open our friends on here to exactly why Charles and the Church so instinctively know this to be wrong.

    With “deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country” the UK government, in our name, are seeking to use Asylum seekers who have reached this country, for investing in Rwanda. They are very open about that. They believe that’s the right thing to do, on the economic development side, but also on the migration partnership - exploiting these asylum seekers in the same way as those chained in cargo holds during the slave trade.

    IT - IS - COLONIALISM.

    And Just go there for processing? At what point are they processed? At the point Patel’s government decides who is and who isn’t put on the plane, thats the moment of processing. Like choosing between slaves in a trade market.

    I’m no wishywashy lefty - and I am proud to stand with Prince Charles and the Church of England on this one.
    Except for the fact you're wrong.

    Australia does offshore people who land on Australian soil (though next to nobody does now, because of the policy). And if they're genuine refugees they're aided to get refugee status elsewhere, eg Nauru or even the USA, but not as a general rule Australia.

    Do you actually think its a case of if people land on Australian soil then its all fine and dandy and they're granted asylum? No, that's not the policy.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,081
    Some of the idiot Tory backbenchers who last night were calling for the ECHR to be abandoned have now been told the GFA relies on it...
  • Scott_xP said:

    Some of the idiot Tory backbenchers who last night were calling for the ECHR to be abandoned have now been told the GFA relies on it...

    So?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,081
    On the UK leaving the ECHR:

    Pensions secretary Therese Coffey: "I don’t think that’s even a question that, I’m aware, is on the table at all."

    PM's spokesman: "We're keeping all options on the table."

    Maybe they're talking about a different table.

    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1537049847643131906
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 1,468
    How many people who wish to repudiate the convention on human rights have actually read it and/or can explain which bits they disapprove of?

    I used to bow to no one in my dislike of the EU court but this isn’t that.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 44,318
    edited June 15
    "It is unclear what the policy of the Labour Party or the Lib Dems is on this. They had better grapple with this and come up with something more than simply criticism of the government’s policy. But it is not the job of lawyers, “lefty” or otherwise, or commentators to come up with policies."

    Disagree on this. So the finest minds of lawyers in this country get a free pass to suck air through teeth and simply say "I wouldn't do it like that..." do they?

    If they offer no alternatives, it is fair game to assume they have no alternatives. Which considerably undermines their outrage in a Government that is doing "something". If it is not the right thing, then it is incumbent on them to say what their workable alternative would be. Otherwise, voters will draw the conclusion that they are happy for thousands of people to make a terrible journey with serious risk of death to profit a small number of people traffickers. Now, I'm sure that is not what they want. So tell us that workable way forward you would support the Home Office in implementing.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 839

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Nigelb said:

    It seems the Rwanda policy is subject to a judicial review next month and I assume that any issues will be addressed and then the policy will be enacted

    By enacted you mean set aside? As various commentators and journalists have pointed out, the government knows this policy is illegal under international law. It was never intended to be enacted.
    If its so illegal then why is it already done by other nations? .
    Which ones ?
    Australia for starters.
    No.
    Australia operates a legally dubious regime of forcible detention and processing of asylum seekers, offshore in foreign jurisdictions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manus_Regional_Processing_Centre
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru_Regional_Processing_Centre

    It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.
    Correct. And that is a crucial distinction.
    Yes. The crucial distinction. That is the killer fact. It does not deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country, as we aim to do with Rwanda.

    We know a lot of posters on here as bright, so it’s surprising the penny has not dropped for them yet on this killer fact.

    St Bart I know as very clued in and intelligent, so a surprise to me he went rushing towards comparisons with Oz scheme, when Patel herself distanced herself from that discredited scheme.

    https://www.times-series.co.uk/news/national/20069548.deal-rwanda-not-comparable-australias-offshore-policy-says-patel/

    Let’s deal with that killer fact, and open our friends on here to exactly why Charles and the Church so instinctively know this to be wrong.

    With “deport individuals seeking asylum to seek asylum in a third country” the UK government, in our name, are seeking to use Asylum seekers who have reached this country, for investing in Rwanda. They are very open about that. They believe that’s the right thing to do, on the economic development side, but also on the migration partnership - exploiting these asylum seekers in the same way as those chained in cargo holds during the slave trade.

    IT - IS - COLONIALISM.

    And Just go there for processing? At what point are they processed? At the point Patel’s government decides who is and who isn’t put on the plane, thats the moment of processing. Like choosing between slaves in a trade market.

    I’m no wishywashy lefty - and I am proud to stand with Prince Charles and the Church of England on this one.
    I quite agree. The policy is rotten from any side of the political aisle and we shouldn’t be afraid to voice that alongside those we normally disagree with. If we have any adherence to the traditions of justice, order and defence of the individual that the UK has (usually) always championed we should be building an ironclad asylum system. One that can hear cases swiftly, with appropriate avenues of appeal and well planned and executed avenues for integration or deportation.

    Instead we have a Home Office that for pretty much my whole lifetime has existed as the PR wing of the government of the time and has become more and more incompetent and half-arsed. The reason the flights are delayed is because the drafting of the law is crap and the Home Office is unable to make it work (a joint effort of poor culture and bad legislation). Quite beyond the moral aspect, it’s embarrassing that the government is unable to follow its own bloody laws.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,503
    algarkirk said:

    Great photo. Proof positive that the ECHR are extra-terrestrials.

    It's a horrid building isn't it? Must be deeply depressing parking there every day. Looks like an avant garde 1970's shopping precinct in Milton Keynes.
    Why are the middle sections tied up with string?

    Au contraire, the middle bits are there to keep the string and sealing wax taut.

    It's still an improvement avant la lettre on the Hotel Jobbie.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 1,468
    Scott_xP said:

    Some of the idiot Tory backbenchers who last night were calling for the ECHR to be abandoned have now been told the GFA relies on it...

    Every single one of them should be placed on front of a microphone, asked which bit they disagree with, and told to discuss a judgement handed out they think constituted over-reach. Anyone caught referencing the ECJ has to buy us all a pint.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,769
    IshmaelZ said:

    Gonna have to show the threader the red card. The idea that a bunch of thick english titled bandits invented anything in 1215 is embarrassing flag flapping nonsense, it is like saying the English invented the concept of speech or walking on one's hind legs and gave it to the world

    Biblical, Greek, Chinese and other precedents

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law

    The English, even with-it lawyers, are exceptionalists? Incoming!
  • MalcolmDunnMalcolmDunn Posts: 129
    Good luck defending lefty lawyers. There are few groups of people with lower levels of appreciation than politicians but they must surely be one of them
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,435

    "It is unclear what the policy of the Labour Party or the Lib Dems is on this. They had better grapple with this and come up with something more than simply criticism of the government’s policy. But it is not the job of lawyers, “lefty” or otherwise, or commentators to come up with policies."

    Disagree on this. So the finest minds of lawyers in this country get a free pass to suck air through teeth and simply say "I wouldn't do it like that..." do they?

    If they offer no alternatives, it is fair game to assume they have no alternatives. Which considerably undermines their outrage in a Government that is doing "something". If it is not the right thing, then it is incumbent on them to say what their workable alternative would be. Otherwise, voters will draw the conclusion that they are happy for thousands of people to make a terrible journey with serious risk of death to profit a small number of people traffickers. Now, I'm sure that is not what they want. So tell us that workable way forward you would support the Home Office in implementing.

    There's a running theme of people saying Labour have no ideas, no policies etc.
    They have bloody loads - they're just not headline grabbers. They are boring, sensible plans.
    I imagine the same is likely true for the Lib Dems.

    "On how to respond to the ongoing small boats crisis, Lammy said: “The first thing you do is you negotiate with your French, your Belgian, your Europol partners. You invest in police, you invest in intelligence, you deal with supply chain issues that can come as far from China, to deal with the criminal gangs.

    “The second thing you need is a deal with Europe, now that we’re out of the European Convention, there is no Dublin Convention that means that we can send people back to the European Union who are not entitled to remain in our country.”

    “And of course, the other thing you’ve gotta do is deal with the asylum backlog. People are waiting up to five years. It’s costing taxpayers money to put people up in hotels,” he added."

    https://labourlist.org/2022/06/government-creating-manufactured-row-over-rwanda-flight-lammy-says/

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,475
    Nigelb said:

    Pulling US troops out of Korea was Trump's second-term priority, Esper's memoir reveals
    https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2022/06/205_331080.html

    Had it been Trump's second term, we'd likely have been writing off Taiwan as well as Ukraine.

    Are you writing off Ukraine already? Are you a Fabrican or a Fabrican't?

    A not impossible course of events over the next couple of years...

    Trump runs.
    The actual result doesn't really matter as he'll claim victory in all circumstances.
    Wide scale civil strife in the US.
    China does its own SMO while the feds exchange small arms fire with the militias.
    Fizzy Lizzy is powerless to alter the tide of history in geopolitics.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,148
    Scott_xP said:

    On the UK leaving the ECHR:

    Pensions secretary Therese Coffey: "I don’t think that’s even a question that, I’m aware, is on the table at all."

    PM's spokesman: "We're keeping all options on the table."

    Maybe they're talking about a different table.

    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1537049847643131906

    It would be a mistake to leave the ECHR but it is a far more honest policy than pretending to implement laws that are not consistent with it and then moaning about the left establishment, judges and even the EU which is not involved.

    I see no problem with negotiating with others to try and update the ECHR to reflect modern life but very much doubt the current lot in power have any interest in the hard work that involves or the patience to make such a tactic work. A serious govt should be doing that and using UK soft power to progress it, whilst accepting and understanding it might take several years for the right international conditions for progress to be met.

    Far easier to abdicate responsibility by deliberately creating laws they know will get struck down so the reason the problems are seen to get worse over time lies with the courts rather than government. So I expect we will continue to talk about leaving the ECHR, perhaps a little more loudly over time, but not actually leave it or do anything constructive to reform it.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,030
    O/T

    Heathrow Terminal 4 has opened, a few weeks earlier than expected.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-61794676
  • biggles said:

    How many people who wish to repudiate the convention on human rights have actually read it and/or can explain which bits they disapprove of?

    I used to bow to no one in my dislike of the EU court but this isn’t that.

    🙋‍♂️

    I don't object to any of the Convention itself.

    What I object to is the Court. The rights should be enshrined by Parliament and determined and upheld by British courts, not foreign courts.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,497
    edited June 15
    Comments:
    1 and 2 Agree

    3 and 4 Not quite. Notice that we attack the USA for enshrining in constitution and the courts (notably the SC) things we think ought to be a matter for elected bodies - notably abortion and gun owning.

    The problem with ECHR is that it replaces too greatly the discretion and powers of elected bodies. But countries vary.

    From a secular Martian perspective it may seem obvious for example that no parliament with powers should include any non elected element, or any appointments purely on a religious basis, and that to do so contravenes basic human rights. And therefore conclude with the Economist that the UK is no better than Tehran-on-Thames.

    I think this would be too unsubtle.

    Or a ECHR-like body could conclude that human rights entail either that abortion should always be allowed or never be allowed - both conclusions follow effortlessly from the basic concept of fundamental and universal human rights.

    It is national parliaments, of the sort that can be elected and chucked out, supported by an independent judiciary and legal profession, and with a free media, that is the best defence and interpreter of human rights.

    I just don't believe that the ECHR is in a better position than our Court of Appeal to decide whether the discretion to grant an interlocutory injunction should be exercised on a particular set of facts.
  • Scott_xP said:

    On the UK leaving the ECHR:

    Pensions secretary Therese Coffey: "I don’t think that’s even a question that, I’m aware, is on the table at all."

    PM's spokesman: "We're keeping all options on the table."

    Maybe they're talking about a different table.

    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1537049847643131906

    It would be a mistake to leave the ECHR but it is a far more honest policy than pretending to implement laws that are not consistent with it and then moaning about the left establishment, judges and even the EU which is not involved.

    I see no problem with negotiating with others to try and update the ECHR to reflect modern life but very much doubt the current lot in power have any interest in the hard work that involves or the patience to make such a tactic work. A serious govt should be doing that and using UK soft power to progress it, whilst accepting and understanding it might take several years for the right international conditions for progress to be met.

    Far easier to abdicate responsibility by deliberately creating laws they know will get struck down so the reason the problems are seen to get worse over time lies with the courts rather than government. So I expect we will continue to talk about leaving the ECHR, perhaps a little more loudly over time, but not actually leave it or do anything constructive to reform it.
    Or we could just leave the ECHR and have Parliament change the law subject to democratic consent.

    If the ECHR needs to be updated to reflect modern life then we should do that via Parliament, not negotiations.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,945
    edited June 15
    If the Fed goes .75% later, we surely can't just go .25% again tomorrow, can we?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,830
    Sandpit said:

    It’s a boring afternoon when there’s no cricket on…

    Royal Ascot. Day two of five. HTH.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,148

    Scott_xP said:

    On the UK leaving the ECHR:

    Pensions secretary Therese Coffey: "I don’t think that’s even a question that, I’m aware, is on the table at all."

    PM's spokesman: "We're keeping all options on the table."

    Maybe they're talking about a different table.

    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1537049847643131906

    It would be a mistake to leave the ECHR but it is a far more honest policy than pretending to implement laws that are not consistent with it and then moaning about the left establishment, judges and even the EU which is not involved.

    I see no problem with negotiating with others to try and update the ECHR to reflect modern life but very much doubt the current lot in power have any interest in the hard work that involves or the patience to make such a tactic work. A serious govt should be doing that and using UK soft power to progress it, whilst accepting and understanding it might take several years for the right international conditions for progress to be met.

    Far easier to abdicate responsibility by deliberately creating laws they know will get struck down so the reason the problems are seen to get worse over time lies with the courts rather than government. So I expect we will continue to talk about leaving the ECHR, perhaps a little more loudly over time, but not actually leave it or do anything constructive to reform it.
    Or we could just leave the ECHR and have Parliament change the law subject to democratic consent.

    If the ECHR needs to be updated to reflect modern life then we should do that via Parliament, not negotiations.
    As I said, although it would be a mistake, that approach would be a far honest policy. That means it is unlikely to be the chosen path of this particular government. Also I don't think it would be part of a manifesto that could get a majority (unless against another Corbyn type of course).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,028
    dixiedean said:

    If the Fed goes .75% later, we surely can't just go .25% again tomorrow, can we?

    Not really, no.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,945
    edited June 15
    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    If the Fed goes .75% later, we surely can't just go .25% again tomorrow, can we?

    Not really, no.
    That was my thought. Consensus in the City is reported to be we will.
    Doesn't compute with me, so was wondering what the thought process was behind that expectation? Can't seem to find any explanation of why that would be so?
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,148
    rkrkrk said:

    "It is unclear what the policy of the Labour Party or the Lib Dems is on this. They had better grapple with this and come up with something more than simply criticism of the government’s policy. But it is not the job of lawyers, “lefty” or otherwise, or commentators to come up with policies."

    Disagree on this. So the finest minds of lawyers in this country get a free pass to suck air through teeth and simply say "I wouldn't do it like that..." do they?

    If they offer no alternatives, it is fair game to assume they have no alternatives. Which considerably undermines their outrage in a Government that is doing "something". If it is not the right thing, then it is incumbent on them to say what their workable alternative would be. Otherwise, voters will draw the conclusion that they are happy for thousands of people to make a terrible journey with serious risk of death to profit a small number of people traffickers. Now, I'm sure that is not what they want. So tell us that workable way forward you would support the Home Office in implementing.

    There's a running theme of people saying Labour have no ideas, no policies etc.
    They have bloody loads - they're just not headline grabbers. They are boring, sensible plans.
    I imagine the same is likely true for the Lib Dems.

    "On how to respond to the ongoing small boats crisis, Lammy said: “The first thing you do is you negotiate with your French, your Belgian, your Europol partners. You invest in police, you invest in intelligence, you deal with supply chain issues that can come as far from China, to deal with the criminal gangs.

    “The second thing you need is a deal with Europe, now that we’re out of the European Convention, there is no Dublin Convention that means that we can send people back to the European Union who are not entitled to remain in our country.”

    “And of course, the other thing you’ve gotta do is deal with the asylum backlog. People are waiting up to five years. It’s costing taxpayers money to put people up in hotels,” he added."

    https://labourlist.org/2022/06/government-creating-manufactured-row-over-rwanda-flight-lammy-says/

    I do think the policies suggested on here are better.

    Fund the courts (essentially his third point, but should be no 1)
    Impose crippling fines on business, including personal fines for directors, that employ illegal workers.
    Provide significant encouragement for the illegal workers to "grass" on their employers through cash and/or pathways to residency.

    That would work.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,065
    edited June 15

    biggles said:

    How many people who wish to repudiate the convention on human rights have actually read it and/or can explain which bits they disapprove of?

    I used to bow to no one in my dislike of the EU court but this isn’t that.

    🙋‍♂️

    I don't object to any of the Convention itself.

    What I object to is the Court. The rights should be enshrined by Parliament and determined and upheld by British courts, not foreign courts.
    Having two different things called "ECHR" surely doesn't help discussions...
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 18,806
    Andy_JS said:

    Average Labour lead is 5%. Is that good or bad in mid-term after 12 years of Tory-led government?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2022

    BAD very BAD
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,028

    Sandpit said:

    It’s a boring afternoon when there’s no cricket on…

    Royal Ascot. Day two of five. HTH.
    Ah, of course.

    Happy memories of that place, I did some work there around the redevelopment in 2006. There’s a photo of me somewhere with a radio earpiece in one ear, a mobile phone earpiece in the other, holding a computer keyboard under my arm - dressed in a top hat and tails. I was the L3 IT support for the caterers’ till systems!
  • KeystoneKeystone Posts: 45

    "It is unclear what the policy of the Labour Party or the Lib Dems is on this. They had better grapple with this and come up with something more than simply criticism of the government’s policy. But it is not the job of lawyers, “lefty” or otherwise, or commentators to come up with policies."

    Disagree on this. So the finest minds of lawyers in this country get a free pass to suck air through teeth and simply say "I wouldn't do it like that..." do they?

    If they offer no alternatives, it is fair game to assume they have no alternatives. Which considerably undermines their outrage in a Government that is doing "something". If it is not the right thing, then it is incumbent on them to say what their workable alternative would be. Otherwise, voters will draw the conclusion that they are happy for thousands of people to make a terrible journey with serious risk of death to profit a small number of people traffickers. Now, I'm sure that is not what they want. So tell us that workable way forward you would support the Home Office in implementing.

    This is sophistry.

    With all due respect, the idea that we can only criticise a policy if we are able to propose a superior alternative policy is transparently designed to suppress criticism.

    On that basis, you would be unable to critique senior execs of listed firms - government economic policy - or more seriously managers of Premier League clubs.

    Really poor.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,081
    Sandpit said:

    I was the L3 IT support for the caterers’ till systems!

    Not MICROS I hope
  • Scott_xP said:

    On the UK leaving the ECHR:

    Pensions secretary Therese Coffey: "I don’t think that’s even a question that, I’m aware, is on the table at all."

    PM's spokesman: "We're keeping all options on the table."

    Maybe they're talking about a different table.

    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1537049847643131906

    It would be a mistake to leave the ECHR but it is a far more honest policy than pretending to implement laws that are not consistent with it and then moaning about the left establishment, judges and even the EU which is not involved.

    I see no problem with negotiating with others to try and update the ECHR to reflect modern life but very much doubt the current lot in power have any interest in the hard work that involves or the patience to make such a tactic work. A serious govt should be doing that and using UK soft power to progress it, whilst accepting and understanding it might take several years for the right international conditions for progress to be met.

    Far easier to abdicate responsibility by deliberately creating laws they know will get struck down so the reason the problems are seen to get worse over time lies with the courts rather than government. So I expect we will continue to talk about leaving the ECHR, perhaps a little more loudly over time, but not actually leave it or do anything constructive to reform it.
    Or we could just leave the ECHR and have Parliament change the law subject to democratic consent.

    If the ECHR needs to be updated to reflect modern life then we should do that via Parliament, not negotiations.
    As I said, although it would be a mistake, that approach would be a far honest policy. That means it is unlikely to be the chosen path of this particular government. Also I don't think it would be part of a manifesto that could get a majority (unless against another Corbyn type of course).
    I'd rather be honest than back the government.

    Why can't or shouldn't it get a majority though? In as much as the Council of Europe isn't a part of the EU (its even less effective than the EU), the whole point of Brexit was to take back control so that laws can be democratically determined via Parliament.

    Why can't that cover the ECHR too? The rights should be protected, defended, debated and amended via Parliament and the UK courts not foreign courts.

    The Council of Europe has utterly failed in its duty that it was set up for. It treated Russia as an upstanding member only a few months ago. It treats Victor Orban's Hungary as an upstanding member today. As far as protecting fundamental civil liberties from those who wish to abuse them, the ECHR is about as much use as a Marzipan dildo.

    Would you rather our civil liberties be as upheld as Orban's Hungary (ECHR member) or Trudeau's Canada/Ardern's New Zealand (not ECHR members)?
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,065

    Sandpit said:

    It’s a boring afternoon when there’s no cricket on…

    Royal Ascot. Day two of five. HTH.
    About half an hour's action spread out over a full afternoon? I've had a flutter as usual (stuck my own pins today rather than relying on PB's tipsters, so expected return equals zero), but it's not exactly the distraction from work of yesterday's cricket...
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 18,806
    Scott_xP said:

    On the UK leaving the ECHR:

    Pensions secretary Therese Coffey: "I don’t think that’s even a question that, I’m aware, is on the table at all."

    PM's spokesman: "We're keeping all options on the table."

    Maybe they're talking about a different table.

    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1537049847643131906

    Its not on the Coffey Table

    Other tables are available
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,827
    I am more than mildly surprised that the ECtHR granted an interim order, especially ex parte and without a hearing. I frankly did not think that they had the power to do that. Normally the ECtHR simply grants declarators after full hearings and expresses a view on whether the laws of the relevant country are compatible with the Convention Rights as they have interpreted them.

    I also think that the question of whether someone is put on a plane from this country is really a matter for the courts of this country and, since the courts here had declined to interere, they should have gone.

    None of this in any way departs from my views expressed yesterday that this is an immoral, contemptible policy which brings shame on this country by using vulnerable human beings as tokens or political pawns to give some purported credibility to a HS who seems to lack a moral compass or even a sense of decency.
  • Applicant said:

    biggles said:

    How many people who wish to repudiate the convention on human rights have actually read it and/or can explain which bits they disapprove of?

    I used to bow to no one in my dislike of the EU court but this isn’t that.

    🙋‍♂️

    I don't object to any of the Convention itself.

    What I object to is the Court. The rights should be enshrined by Parliament and determined and upheld by British courts, not foreign courts.
    Having two different things called "ECHR" surely doesn't help discussions...
    Indeed. If it were possible to keep the ECHR (Convention) but leave the ECtHR (Court) then I'd be quite happy with that, but regrettably I believe since 1998 all members of the ECHR now need to be a part of the ECtHR.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,081

    Scott_xP said:

    On the UK leaving the ECHR:

    Pensions secretary Therese Coffey: "I don’t think that’s even a question that, I’m aware, is on the table at all."

    PM's spokesman: "We're keeping all options on the table."

    Maybe they're talking about a different table.

    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1537049847643131906

    Its not on the Coffey Table

    Other tables are available
    Your coat...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,028
    Scott_xP said:

    Sandpit said:

    I was the L3 IT support for the caterers’ till systems!

    Not MICROS I hope
    Thankfully not. In my younger days I worked with pretty much every other system out there.

    The Micros Fidelio hotel systems were very good, but the restaurant systems were crap - but loads of places still bought them, mostly because loads of places still bought them.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,030
    "Nigel Farage
    @Nigel_Farage

    The ECHR will not release the name of the judge that stopped the Rwanda flight.
    What are they scared of? Was the person even a proper judge?
    We need to know.
    11:24 AM · Jun 15, 2022"

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1537018187568627712
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,065
    Keystone said:

    "It is unclear what the policy of the Labour Party or the Lib Dems is on this. They had better grapple with this and come up with something more than simply criticism of the government’s policy. But it is not the job of lawyers, “lefty” or otherwise, or commentators to come up with policies."

    Disagree on this. So the finest minds of lawyers in this country get a free pass to suck air through teeth and simply say "I wouldn't do it like that..." do they?

    If they offer no alternatives, it is fair game to assume they have no alternatives. Which considerably undermines their outrage in a Government that is doing "something". If it is not the right thing, then it is incumbent on them to say what their workable alternative would be. Otherwise, voters will draw the conclusion that they are happy for thousands of people to make a terrible journey with serious risk of death to profit a small number of people traffickers. Now, I'm sure that is not what they want. So tell us that workable way forward you would support the Home Office in implementing.

    This is sophistry.

    With all due respect, the idea that we can only criticise a policy if we are able to propose a superior alternative policy is transparently designed to suppress criticism.

    On that basis, you would be unable to critique senior execs of listed firms - government economic policy - or more seriously managers of Premier League clubs.

    Really poor.
    Not at all. You can't say "something must be done, we have no ideas, but definitely not what you're doing" and expect to be taken seriously. The middle leg makes the first and last mutually exclusive.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 40,444
    biggles said:

    How many people who wish to repudiate the convention on human rights have actually read it and/or can explain which bits they disapprove of?

    I used to bow to no one in my dislike of the EU court but this isn’t that.

    The best argument for leaving is not based on the specifics of the convention but on the provincialising effect it has on national politics.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 14,148

    Scott_xP said:

    On the UK leaving the ECHR:

    Pensions secretary Therese Coffey: "I don’t think that’s even a question that, I’m aware, is on the table at all."

    PM's spokesman: "We're keeping all options on the table."

    Maybe they're talking about a different table.

    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1537049847643131906

    It would be a mistake to leave the ECHR but it is a far more honest policy than pretending to implement laws that are not consistent with it and then moaning about the left establishment, judges and even the EU which is not involved.

    I see no problem with negotiating with others to try and update the ECHR to reflect modern life but very much doubt the current lot in power have any interest in the hard work that involves or the patience to make such a tactic work. A serious govt should be doing that and using UK soft power to progress it, whilst accepting and understanding it might take several years for the right international conditions for progress to be met.

    Far easier to abdicate responsibility by deliberately creating laws they know will get struck down so the reason the problems are seen to get worse over time lies with the courts rather than government. So I expect we will continue to talk about leaving the ECHR, perhaps a little more loudly over time, but not actually leave it or do anything constructive to reform it.
    Or we could just leave the ECHR and have Parliament change the law subject to democratic consent.

    If the ECHR needs to be updated to reflect modern life then we should do that via Parliament, not negotiations.
    As I said, although it would be a mistake, that approach would be a far honest policy. That means it is unlikely to be the chosen path of this particular government. Also I don't think it would be part of a manifesto that could get a majority (unless against another Corbyn type of course).
    I'd rather be honest than back the government.

    Why can't or shouldn't it get a majority though? In as much as the Council of Europe isn't a part of the EU (its even less effective than the EU), the whole point of Brexit was to take back control so that laws can be democratically determined via Parliament.

    Why can't that cover the ECHR too? The rights should be protected, defended, debated and amended via Parliament and the UK courts not foreign courts.

    The Council of Europe has utterly failed in its duty that it was set up for. It treated Russia as an upstanding member only a few months ago. It treats Victor Orban's Hungary as an upstanding member today. As far as protecting fundamental civil liberties from those who wish to abuse them, the ECHR is about as much use as a Marzipan dildo.

    Would you rather our civil liberties be as upheld as Orban's Hungary (ECHR member) or Trudeau's Canada/Ardern's New Zealand (not ECHR members)?
    You start by making your case, which I disagree with, fairly well but end up with a silly question. If plucking random countries out of ECHR/non ECHR members why not choose Norway, Switzerland or Netherlands vs Taliban Afghanistan, China or Syria?

    For me, international co-operation on such matters does not just provide a good check on executive power in the UK itself, but is also a good way of spending the UKs soft power capital to help defend the values we believe in and over the long run make trade easier and wars less likely.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,945
    Andy_JS said:

    "Nigel Farage
    @Nigel_Farage

    The ECHR will not release the name of the judge that stopped the Rwanda flight.
    What are they scared of? Was the person even a proper judge?
    We need to know.
    11:24 AM · Jun 15, 2022"

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1537018187568627712

    Maybe they were an agency worker?
    They can do railway signalling after all.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,028
    edited June 15
    dixiedean said:

    Sandpit said:

    dixiedean said:

    If the Fed goes .75% later, we surely can't just go .25% again tomorrow, can we?

    Not really, no.
    That was my thought. Consensus in the City is reported to be we will.
    Doesn't compute with me, so was wondering what the thought process was behind that expectation? Can't seem to find any explanation of why that would be so?
    I can barely see the reasoning behind .25 from a domestic point of view, let alone from the international view. .50 makes much more sense given the runaway inflation.

    If the Fed goes with .75, the BoE going with .25 will quickly devalue the pound against the dollar - which, given that most of the inflation is imported, is a somewhat sub-optimal position.

    If the fed goes with the full point, there will be pressure for the BoE to go .75 at least.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    Applicant said:

    Keystone said:

    "It is unclear what the policy of the Labour Party or the Lib Dems is on this. They had better grapple with this and come up with something more than simply criticism of the government’s policy. But it is not the job of lawyers, “lefty” or otherwise, or commentators to come up with policies."

    Disagree on this. So the finest minds of lawyers in this country get a free pass to suck air through teeth and simply say "I wouldn't do it like that..." do they?

    If they offer no alternatives, it is fair game to assume they have no alternatives. Which considerably undermines their outrage in a Government that is doing "something". If it is not the right thing, then it is incumbent on them to say what their workable alternative would be. Otherwise, voters will draw the conclusion that they are happy for thousands of people to make a terrible journey with serious risk of death to profit a small number of people traffickers. Now, I'm sure that is not what they want. So tell us that workable way forward you would support the Home Office in implementing.

    This is sophistry.

    With all due respect, the idea that we can only criticise a policy if we are able to propose a superior alternative policy is transparently designed to suppress criticism.

    On that basis, you would be unable to critique senior execs of listed firms - government economic policy - or more seriously managers of Premier League clubs.

    Really poor.
    Not at all. You can't say "something must be done, we have no ideas, but definitely not what you're doing" and expect to be taken seriously. The middle leg makes the first and last mutually exclusive.
    Nonsense. The very basis of free speech and democracy is to call a farcical policy farcial and ask for better from a government, without having to put forward a better policy ourselves (which can then be stolen by the clueless twunks).
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 9,475
    Applicant said:



    Not at all. You can't say "something must be done, we have no ideas, but definitely not what you're doing" and expect to be taken seriously. The middle leg makes the first and last mutually exclusive.

    Doing absolutely nothing would be preferable to what Johnson and the Pritster are trying to do.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,969
    Andy_JS said:

    "Nigel Farage
    @Nigel_Farage

    The ECHR will not release the name of the judge that stopped the Rwanda flight.
    What are they scared of? Was the person even a proper judge?
    We need to know.
    11:24 AM · Jun 15, 2022"

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1537018187568627712

    That’s simply bizarre. Are the Strasbourg courts not entirely transparent?

    Another reason to leave. We are capable of protecting the civil rights of Britons in Britain. We certainly don’t lack for activist lawyers of a liberal bent. We do not need to listen to a “superior” court of foreign judges in a foreign land

    The ECHR, for the UK, has outlived its usefulness

  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,065

    Applicant said:

    Keystone said:

    "It is unclear what the policy of the Labour Party or the Lib Dems is on this. They had better grapple with this and come up with something more than simply criticism of the government’s policy. But it is not the job of lawyers, “lefty” or otherwise, or commentators to come up with policies."

    Disagree on this. So the finest minds of lawyers in this country get a free pass to suck air through teeth and simply say "I wouldn't do it like that..." do they?

    If they offer no alternatives, it is fair game to assume they have no alternatives. Which considerably undermines their outrage in a Government that is doing "something". If it is not the right thing, then it is incumbent on them to say what their workable alternative would be. Otherwise, voters will draw the conclusion that they are happy for thousands of people to make a terrible journey with serious risk of death to profit a small number of people traffickers. Now, I'm sure that is not what they want. So tell us that workable way forward you would support the Home Office in implementing.

    This is sophistry.

    With all due respect, the idea that we can only criticise a policy if we are able to propose a superior alternative policy is transparently designed to suppress criticism.

    On that basis, you would be unable to critique senior execs of listed firms - government economic policy - or more seriously managers of Premier League clubs.

    Really poor.
    Not at all. You can't say "something must be done, we have no ideas, but definitely not what you're doing" and expect to be taken seriously. The middle leg makes the first and last mutually exclusive.
    Nonsense. The very basis of free speech and democracy is to call a farcical policy farcial and ask for better from a government, without having to put forward a better policy ourselves (which can then be stolen by the clueless twunks).
    Fine, then don't expect to be taken seriously :)
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    edited June 15
    On topic. Why are we using the picture of such an awful ugly fertiliser factory to illustrate this header?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,028
    Dura_Ace said:

    Applicant said:



    Not at all. You can't say "something must be done, we have no ideas, but definitely not what you're doing" and expect to be taken seriously. The middle leg makes the first and last mutually exclusive.

    Doing absolutely nothing would be preferable to what Johnson and the Pritster are trying to do.
    Heartlessly condemning people to die in the Channel?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 22,503
    edited June 15
    dixiedean said:

    Andy_JS said:

    "Nigel Farage
    @Nigel_Farage

    The ECHR will not release the name of the judge that stopped the Rwanda flight.
    What are they scared of? Was the person even a proper judge?
    We need to know.
    11:24 AM · Jun 15, 2022"

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1537018187568627712

    Maybe they were an agency worker?
    They can do railway signalling after all.
    Perhaps HMG have this training establishment in mind, in the museum at York: it's in the rather nice "open store" junkshop display mode hall, together with Brunel's stone sample collection for (I presume) GWR extensionms beyond Bristol, and about 5 million other things.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MTaPwuDAqg&t=9s
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,193
    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Applicant said:



    Not at all. You can't say "something must be done, we have no ideas, but definitely not what you're doing" and expect to be taken seriously. The middle leg makes the first and last mutually exclusive.

    Doing absolutely nothing would be preferable to what Johnson and the Pritster are trying to do.
    Heartlessly condemning people to die in the Channel?
    At least then they’d be spared the possibility of coming across this blog and reading Leon’s drivel.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,562
    Mr. Sandpit, I agree but the MPC has been slow in every way on rates so I'm expecting this timidity to continue.
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,065
    Dura_Ace said:

    Applicant said:



    Not at all. You can't say "something must be done, we have no ideas, but definitely not what you're doing" and expect to be taken seriously. The middle leg makes the first and last mutually exclusive.

    Doing absolutely nothing would be preferable to what Johnson and the Pritster are trying to do.
    So you're happy for an unlimited number of economic migrants to cross illegally via the safe country of France with an uncertain number dying on the way?

    Fine. But that was in the bit you snipped out of the quote - If they offer no alternatives, it is fair game to assume they have no alternatives. Which considerably undermines their outrage in a Government that is doing "something". If it is not the right thing, then it is incumbent on them to say what their workable alternative would be. Otherwise, voters will draw the conclusion that they are happy for thousands of people to make a terrible journey with serious risk of death to profit a small number of people traffickers.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,475
    Andy_JS said:

    "Nigel Farage
    @Nigel_Farage

    The ECHR will not release the name of the judge that stopped the Rwanda flight.
    What are they scared of? Was the person even a proper judge?
    We need to know.
    11:24 AM · Jun 15, 2022"

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1537018187568627712

    Who is 'we' and why do they need to know? Are these due an airing?




  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,634
    .

    Scott_xP said:

    On the UK leaving the ECHR:

    Pensions secretary Therese Coffey: "I don’t think that’s even a question that, I’m aware, is on the table at all."

    PM's spokesman: "We're keeping all options on the table."

    Maybe they're talking about a different table.

    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1537049847643131906

    It would be a mistake to leave the ECHR but it is a far more honest policy than pretending to implement laws that are not consistent with it and then moaning about the left establishment, judges and even the EU which is not involved.

    I see no problem with negotiating with others to try and update the ECHR to reflect modern life but very much doubt the current lot in power have any interest in the hard work that involves or the patience to make such a tactic work. A serious govt should be doing that and using UK soft power to progress it, whilst accepting and understanding it might take several years for the right international conditions for progress to be met.

    Far easier to abdicate responsibility by deliberately creating laws they know will get struck down so the reason the problems are seen to get worse over time lies with the courts rather than government. So I expect we will continue to talk about leaving the ECHR, perhaps a little more loudly over time, but not actually leave it or do anything constructive to reform it.
    Or we could just leave the ECHR and have Parliament change the law subject to democratic consent.

    If the ECHR needs to be updated to reflect modern life then we should do that via Parliament, not negotiations.
    As I said, although it would be a mistake, that approach would be a far honest policy. That means it is unlikely to be the chosen path of this particular government. Also I don't think it would be part of a manifesto that could get a majority (unless against another Corbyn type of course).
    I'd rather be honest than back the government.

    Why can't or shouldn't it get a majority though? In as much as the Council of Europe isn't a part of the EU (its even less effective than the EU), the whole point of Brexit was to take back control so that laws can be democratically determined via Parliament.

    Why can't that cover the ECHR too? The rights should be protected, defended, debated and amended via Parliament and the UK courts not foreign courts.

    The Council of Europe has utterly failed in its duty that it was set up for. It treated Russia as an upstanding member only a few months ago. It treats Victor Orban's Hungary as an upstanding member today. As far as protecting fundamental civil liberties from those who wish to abuse them, the ECHR is about as much use as a Marzipan dildo.

    Would you rather our civil liberties be as upheld as Orban's Hungary (ECHR member) or Trudeau's Canada/Ardern's New Zealand (not ECHR members)?
    You start by making your case, which I disagree with, fairly well but end up with a silly question. If plucking random countries out of ECHR/non ECHR members why not choose Norway, Switzerland or Netherlands vs Taliban Afghanistan, China or Syria?

    For me, international co-operation on such matters does not just provide a good check on executive power in the UK itself, but is also a good way of spending the UKs soft power capital to help defend the values we believe in and over the long run make trade easier and wars less likely.
    Agreed.

    And I'd add that while, in theory, we could entrench such rights domestically, without handing jurisdiction to any external body, there's no pressing reason to do so.

    And every reason to greatly distrust the current lot in power to undertake such an exercise.
    (Along with their various potential replacements.)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,969

    Applicant said:

    Keystone said:

    "It is unclear what the policy of the Labour Party or the Lib Dems is on this. They had better grapple with this and come up with something more than simply criticism of the government’s policy. But it is not the job of lawyers, “lefty” or otherwise, or commentators to come up with policies."

    Disagree on this. So the finest minds of lawyers in this country get a free pass to suck air through teeth and simply say "I wouldn't do it like that..." do they?

    If they offer no alternatives, it is fair game to assume they have no alternatives. Which considerably undermines their outrage in a Government that is doing "something". If it is not the right thing, then it is incumbent on them to say what their workable alternative would be. Otherwise, voters will draw the conclusion that they are happy for thousands of people to make a terrible journey with serious risk of death to profit a small number of people traffickers. Now, I'm sure that is not what they want. So tell us that workable way forward you would support the Home Office in implementing.

    This is sophistry.

    With all due respect, the idea that we can only criticise a policy if we are able to propose a superior alternative policy is transparently designed to suppress criticism.

    On that basis, you would be unable to critique senior execs of listed firms - government economic policy - or more seriously managers of Premier League clubs.

    Really poor.
    Not at all. You can't say "something must be done, we have no ideas, but definitely not what you're doing" and expect to be taken seriously. The middle leg makes the first and last mutually exclusive.
    Nonsense. The very basis of free speech and democracy is to call a farcical policy farcial and ask for better from a government, without having to put forward a better policy ourselves (which can then be stolen by the clueless twunks).
    Sure. You can do that. But very quickly you will look head-deskingly absurd in front of the voters

    “What’s your policy then?”

    “Er…. Er…. Certainly not this Rwanda one”

    “Yes, but what would you DO about the boats?”

    “Something”

    “Ok, but what?”

    “Uh. Not telling you”

    Etc

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,634
    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Applicant said:



    Not at all. You can't say "something must be done, we have no ideas, but definitely not what you're doing" and expect to be taken seriously. The middle leg makes the first and last mutually exclusive.

    Doing absolutely nothing would be preferable to what Johnson and the Pritster are trying to do.
    Heartlessly condemning people to die in the Channel?
    You are assuming, without evidence, that this policy does anything about that.

    And in any event some of us have offered alternatives.
  • Scott_xP said:

    On the UK leaving the ECHR:

    Pensions secretary Therese Coffey: "I don’t think that’s even a question that, I’m aware, is on the table at all."

    PM's spokesman: "We're keeping all options on the table."

    Maybe they're talking about a different table.

    https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1537049847643131906

    It would be a mistake to leave the ECHR but it is a far more honest policy than pretending to implement laws that are not consistent with it and then moaning about the left establishment, judges and even the EU which is not involved.

    I see no problem with negotiating with others to try and update the ECHR to reflect modern life but very much doubt the current lot in power have any interest in the hard work that involves or the patience to make such a tactic work. A serious govt should be doing that and using UK soft power to progress it, whilst accepting and understanding it might take several years for the right international conditions for progress to be met.

    Far easier to abdicate responsibility by deliberately creating laws they know will get struck down so the reason the problems are seen to get worse over time lies with the courts rather than government. So I expect we will continue to talk about leaving the ECHR, perhaps a little more loudly over time, but not actually leave it or do anything constructive to reform it.
    Or we could just leave the ECHR and have Parliament change the law subject to democratic consent.

    If the ECHR needs to be updated to reflect modern life then we should do that via Parliament, not negotiations.
    As I said, although it would be a mistake, that approach would be a far honest policy. That means it is unlikely to be the chosen path of this particular government. Also I don't think it would be part of a manifesto that could get a majority (unless against another Corbyn type of course).
    I'd rather be honest than back the government.

    Why can't or shouldn't it get a majority though? In as much as the Council of Europe isn't a part of the EU (its even less effective than the EU), the whole point of Brexit was to take back control so that laws can be democratically determined via Parliament.

    Why can't that cover the ECHR too? The rights should be protected, defended, debated and amended via Parliament and the UK courts not foreign courts.

    The Council of Europe has utterly failed in its duty that it was set up for. It treated Russia as an upstanding member only a few months ago. It treats Victor Orban's Hungary as an upstanding member today. As far as protecting fundamental civil liberties from those who wish to abuse them, the ECHR is about as much use as a Marzipan dildo.

    Would you rather our civil liberties be as upheld as Orban's Hungary (ECHR member) or Trudeau's Canada/Ardern's New Zealand (not ECHR members)?
    You start by making your case, which I disagree with, fairly well but end up with a silly question. If plucking random countries out of ECHR/non ECHR members why not choose Norway, Switzerland or Netherlands vs Taliban Afghanistan, China or Syria?

    For me, international co-operation on such matters does not just provide a good check on executive power in the UK itself, but is also a good way of spending the UKs soft power capital to help defend the values we believe in and over the long run make trade easier and wars less likely.
    Except its not a silly question, because it demonstrates the point. If the Council of Europe was the firewall against abuses that it was set up to be, but failed to be, then it wouldn't have Orban's Hungary or Putin's Russia (as recently as February) as members. Or it would have prevented them from doing what they're doing. Heck some people have in all seriousness been arguing in recent months that we need to asylum seekers from France as their rights are being abused by the French, which is why they want to come here and why we should welcome them - that may be correct, but if so, why has the ECHR failed to prevent France from acting that way?

    The countries aren't random, the thing is that the ECHR is not some bulwark against abuse, neither is the Council of Europe. It was set up to be, but its been corrupted since. The Council of Europe suspended Russia's voting rights following the invasion of Crimea (human rights abuses should have been evident before that), so Russia threatened to pull funding from the Council, and the Council backed down and restored Russia's voting rights. Is that the institution you want to put your faith in to maintain your liberties?

    Nations with good civil liberties, like the UK, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands, New Zealand or Canada etc have them because the people there are ever vigilant to fight for their rights for liberties. Because we're democracies where the people value them, and fight for them.

    If that ceases to be true. If people put too much faith into institutions that are able to let them down, rather than ensuring their rights themselves, whether that be written constitutions (USA) or the ECHR (Hungary, Russia etc) then they can be abused.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 839
    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Keystone said:

    "It is unclear what the policy of the Labour Party or the Lib Dems is on this. They had better grapple with this and come up with something more than simply criticism of the government’s policy. But it is not the job of lawyers, “lefty” or otherwise, or commentators to come up with policies."

    Disagree on this. So the finest minds of lawyers in this country get a free pass to suck air through teeth and simply say "I wouldn't do it like that..." do they?

    If they offer no alternatives, it is fair game to assume they have no alternatives. Which considerably undermines their outrage in a Government that is doing "something". If it is not the right thing, then it is incumbent on them to say what their workable alternative would be. Otherwise, voters will draw the conclusion that they are happy for thousands of people to make a terrible journey with serious risk of death to profit a small number of people traffickers. Now, I'm sure that is not what they want. So tell us that workable way forward you would support the Home Office in implementing.

    This is sophistry.

    With all due respect, the idea that we can only criticise a policy if we are able to propose a superior alternative policy is transparently designed to suppress criticism.

    On that basis, you would be unable to critique senior execs of listed firms - government economic policy - or more seriously managers of Premier League clubs.

    Really poor.
    Not at all. You can't say "something must be done, we have no ideas, but definitely not what you're doing" and expect to be taken seriously. The middle leg makes the first and last mutually exclusive.
    Nonsense. The very basis of free speech and democracy is to call a farcical policy farcial and ask for better from a government, without having to put forward a better policy ourselves (which can then be stolen by the clueless twunks).
    Sure. You can do that. But very quickly you will look head-deskingly absurd in front of the voters

    “What’s your policy then?”

    “Er…. Er…. Certainly not this Rwanda one”

    “Yes, but what would you DO about the boats?”

    “Something”

    “Ok, but what?”

    “Uh. Not telling you”

    Etc

    It was posted up thread.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 17,030

    Andy_JS said:

    "Nigel Farage
    @Nigel_Farage

    The ECHR will not release the name of the judge that stopped the Rwanda flight.
    What are they scared of? Was the person even a proper judge?
    We need to know.
    11:24 AM · Jun 15, 2022"

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1537018187568627712

    Who is 'we' and why do they need to know? Are these due an airing?




    You don't believe in an open justice system? Usually we know who the judges/jurists are in a case.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 839

    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Applicant said:



    Not at all. You can't say "something must be done, we have no ideas, but definitely not what you're doing" and expect to be taken seriously. The middle leg makes the first and last mutually exclusive.

    Doing absolutely nothing would be preferable to what Johnson and the Pritster are trying to do.
    Heartlessly condemning people to die in the Channel?
    At least then they’d be spared the possibility of coming across this blog and reading Leon’s drivel.
    In all seriousness I’ve been impressed by the debate on PB today. I was expecting it to be a dumpster fire (and the usual suspects are trying hard) but it’s mostly been an interesting discussion on the role of international arbitration in matters of ECHR jurisdiction. Which is interesting.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    edited June 15
    Andy_JS said:

    Average Labour lead is 5%. Is that good or bad in mid-term after 12 years of Tory-led government?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2022

    to have it that low you must have used the Opinium with swing back built in, did you?

    The lab Lib green combi has reached sixty, with Tories on 32 - historically there wouldn’t have been polling like that, yet like HY you are keen to make historical comparisons Oppositions need 10+ leads mid term to have any chance, without the present precedent matching the historic diagnostic. How much of this is fair to say?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,827
    So what is the solution if sending token numbers of unlucky sods to Rwanda is not the answer?

    I personally think that the problem is not so much with ECHR as the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees. This Convention, created when the horrors of the death camps of Nazi Germany were still incredibly fresh and raw, sought to give "rights" to those fleeing persecution or war. It was understandable in that context but it was a different world in terms of freedom of movement.

    To be clear I do not think that this country should even contemplate doing this unilaterally, it is something that should be done in co-ordination with as many other countries as possible, but I do think it needs to be done.

    What would replace it? Firstly, states should be free to choose to whom they want to give rights of residence. So we could, and should, continue to give such rights to Hong Kong Chinese, to Ukranians or to anyone else we think we should help. We can give such rights to those who bring skills or even potential (people who have done their degree here, for example) as we think fit to meet the needs of our economy at the time. But the key difference would be that it was our choice, not the choice of the self selecting few who can afford to pay the people smugglers to get here.

    Even this would not solve all problems. Those who do make it here from very dangerous countries can probably not be sent back, for example, so they would be given temporary residence, perhaps with more restricted rights, until it was safe to return them. That may never happen of course.

    Personally, I would combine such a change with very widespread amnesties for those already here. Our asylum/immigration service is simply not fit for purpose. It leaves people hanging in limbo for many years and fails to implement most of the decisions that it ever gets around to making. This is both cruel and capricious as well as an incredible waste of money. We should let those who are here stay and to work in our regulated economy.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,969
    I’m curious to know whether the problem with the Rwanda plan is… Rwanda

    So for all those that loathe it - most of PB, and Prince Charles etc - how much of this loathing is down to the destination being Rwanda?

    Say if we could get the agreement to send them to Libya (as the EU is doing) would that be OK? Egypt? What about Greenland or Argentina?

    Where is acceptable? France? Which we know is impossible?
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 7,843

    Andy_JS said:

    "Nigel Farage
    @Nigel_Farage

    The ECHR will not release the name of the judge that stopped the Rwanda flight.
    What are they scared of? Was the person even a proper judge?
    We need to know.
    11:24 AM · Jun 15, 2022"

    https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1537018187568627712

    Who is 'we' and why do they need to know? Are these due an airing?




    A we saw yesterday with Guido and the judge who ruled on the Aaron Banks case, a judge's personal life and members of his or her family are now fair game for the British hard-Right. In this case I'm guessing Farage was keen to identify the judge's nationality, so he could be demeaned by the supposed failings of the country of his birth. (Farage has used this method before.)
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 20,945
    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Keystone said:

    "It is unclear what the policy of the Labour Party or the Lib Dems is on this. They had better grapple with this and come up with something more than simply criticism of the government’s policy. But it is not the job of lawyers, “lefty” or otherwise, or commentators to come up with policies."

    Disagree on this. So the finest minds of lawyers in this country get a free pass to suck air through teeth and simply say "I wouldn't do it like that..." do they?

    If they offer no alternatives, it is fair game to assume they have no alternatives. Which considerably undermines their outrage in a Government that is doing "something". If it is not the right thing, then it is incumbent on them to say what their workable alternative would be. Otherwise, voters will draw the conclusion that they are happy for thousands of people to make a terrible journey with serious risk of death to profit a small number of people traffickers. Now, I'm sure that is not what they want. So tell us that workable way forward you would support the Home Office in implementing.

    This is sophistry.

    With all due respect, the idea that we can only criticise a policy if we are able to propose a superior alternative policy is transparently designed to suppress criticism.

    On that basis, you would be unable to critique senior execs of listed firms - government economic policy - or more seriously managers of Premier League clubs.

    Really poor.
    Not at all. You can't say "something must be done, we have no ideas, but definitely not what you're doing" and expect to be taken seriously. The middle leg makes the first and last mutually exclusive.
    Nonsense. The very basis of free speech and democracy is to call a farcical policy farcial and ask for better from a government, without having to put forward a better policy ourselves (which can then be stolen by the clueless twunks).
    Sure. You can do that. But very quickly you will look head-deskingly absurd in front of the voters

    “What’s your policy then?”

    “Er…. Er…. Certainly not this Rwanda one”

    “Yes, but what would you DO about the boats?”

    “Something”

    “Ok, but what?”

    “Uh. Not telling you”

    Etc

    I think that's fully justified for politicians.
    Us randoms on the Internet ought to be judged differently.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877

    Its all about reigniting the war of 2019 to fight the war of late autumn 22.
    Hes gonna cut n run if he survives tiverton etc

    Before the locals I talked up cutting and running this summer - a net loss of 40, holding red wall, libdems and Labour nowhere in blue wall, even then it was outside chance as HY was right, who runs 30 months early starting with this sort of poll deficit? But the locals were so bad for Tories the smart thinking now has this going deep into the 30 months hoping for something to turn up.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,634
    Leon said:

    I’m curious to know whether the problem with the Rwanda plan is… Rwanda

    So for all those that loathe it - most of PB, and Prince Charles etc - how much of this loathing is down to the destination being Rwanda?

    Say if we could get the agreement to send them to Libya (as the EU is doing) would that be OK? Egypt? What about Greenland or Argentina?

    Where is acceptable? France? Which we know is impossible?

    France is perfectly possible, since that is where they set our from by boat, and you wouldn't have to 'send' them at all.

    It would require a UK government willing to set up a permanent asylum processing centre in France, of course.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Keystone said:

    "It is unclear what the policy of the Labour Party or the Lib Dems is on this. They had better grapple with this and come up with something more than simply criticism of the government’s policy. But it is not the job of lawyers, “lefty” or otherwise, or commentators to come up with policies."

    Disagree on this. So the finest minds of lawyers in this country get a free pass to suck air through teeth and simply say "I wouldn't do it like that..." do they?

    If they offer no alternatives, it is fair game to assume they have no alternatives. Which considerably undermines their outrage in a Government that is doing "something". If it is not the right thing, then it is incumbent on them to say what their workable alternative would be. Otherwise, voters will draw the conclusion that they are happy for thousands of people to make a terrible journey with serious risk of death to profit a small number of people traffickers. Now, I'm sure that is not what they want. So tell us that workable way forward you would support the Home Office in implementing.

    This is sophistry.

    With all due respect, the idea that we can only criticise a policy if we are able to propose a superior alternative policy is transparently designed to suppress criticism.

    On that basis, you would be unable to critique senior execs of listed firms - government economic policy - or more seriously managers of Premier League clubs.

    Really poor.
    Not at all. You can't say "something must be done, we have no ideas, but definitely not what you're doing" and expect to be taken seriously. The middle leg makes the first and last mutually exclusive.
    Nonsense. The very basis of free speech and democracy is to call a farcical policy farcial and ask for better from a government, without having to put forward a better policy ourselves (which can then be stolen by the clueless twunks).
    Sure. You can do that. But very quickly you will look head-deskingly absurd in front of the voters

    “What’s your policy then?”

    “Er…. Er…. Certainly not this Rwanda one”

    “Yes, but what would you DO about the boats?”

    “Something”

    “Ok, but what?”

    “Uh. Not telling you”

    Etc

    I think that's fully justified for politicians.
    Us randoms on the Internet ought to be judged differently.
    Absolutely. This is a farce - sort it out government. It’s 2022, surely UK can do better than rehashed colonialism. I stand with Charles and the Church.
  • OnboardG1OnboardG1 Posts: 839
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    I’m curious to know whether the problem with the Rwanda plan is… Rwanda

    So for all those that loathe it - most of PB, and Prince Charles etc - how much of this loathing is down to the destination being Rwanda?

    Say if we could get the agreement to send them to Libya (as the EU is doing) would that be OK? Egypt? What about Greenland or Argentina?

    Where is acceptable? France? Which we know is impossible?

    France is perfectly possible, since that is where they set our from by boat, and you wouldn't have to 'send' them at all.

    It would require a UK government willing to set up a permanent asylum processing centre in France, of course.
    Which would also require a government that didn’t start pointless fights with the French and their European partners for a couple of day’s hagiographic headlines.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,081
    My bit on the government’s Rwanda policy, and that most bankrupt philosophy of the age - “annoying all the right people” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/15/trump-wall-rwanda-deportation-flight-metaphor?CMP=share_btn_tw
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,634
    I note those demanding the defenestration of the European Court are not focusing too hard on the outrage (noted by @Cyclefree at the start of her header) which prompts their wish - the deeply oppressive imposition of a three week injunction prior to full hearings in the UK courts...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,081
    Pretty stark implicit critique of the Rwanda policy by the new German Ambassador to the UK. https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1537067461169889281
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Applicant said:

    Keystone said:

    "It is unclear what the policy of the Labour Party or the Lib Dems is on this. They had better grapple with this and come up with something more than simply criticism of the government’s policy. But it is not the job of lawyers, “lefty” or otherwise, or commentators to come up with policies."

    Disagree on this. So the finest minds of lawyers in this country get a free pass to suck air through teeth and simply say "I wouldn't do it like that..." do they?

    If they offer no alternatives, it is fair game to assume they have no alternatives. Which considerably undermines their outrage in a Government that is doing "something". If it is not the right thing, then it is incumbent on them to say what their workable alternative would be. Otherwise, voters will draw the conclusion that they are happy for thousands of people to make a terrible journey with serious risk of death to profit a small number of people traffickers. Now, I'm sure that is not what they want. So tell us that workable way forward you would support the Home Office in implementing.

    This is sophistry.

    With all due respect, the idea that we can only criticise a policy if we are able to propose a superior alternative policy is transparently designed to suppress criticism.

    On that basis, you would be unable to critique senior execs of listed firms - government economic policy - or more seriously managers of Premier League clubs.

    Really poor.
    Not at all. You can't say "something must be done, we have no ideas, but definitely not what you're doing" and expect to be taken seriously. The middle leg makes the first and last mutually exclusive.
    Nonsense. The very basis of free speech and democracy is to call a farcical policy farcial and ask for better from a government, without having to put forward a better policy ourselves (which can then be stolen by the clueless twunks).
    Sure. You can do that. But very quickly you will look head-deskingly absurd in front of the voters

    “What’s your policy then?”

    “Er…. Er…. Certainly not this Rwanda one”

    “Yes, but what would you DO about the boats?”

    “Something”

    “Ok, but what?”

    “Uh. Not telling you”

    Etc

    I think that's fully justified for politicians.
    Us randoms on the Internet ought to be judged differently.
    You are also wrong again Deano. Osborne and Cameron dined out on “should’ve fixed the roof when the sun was shining” all the way up till the day the manifesto was printed, is the truth isn’t it. Even then “big society” was vacuous pants.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,475
    'LaMDA, which group of people are most uncaring about the fate of brown refugees?'

    'Well Divvie, using my newly acquired sentience, in my judgment folk who bleat on about refugees drowning in the Channel to justify sending them to Rwanda don't give the teeniest flying fuck about refugees, drownded or not.'
  • LeonLeon Posts: 20,969
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    I’m curious to know whether the problem with the Rwanda plan is… Rwanda

    So for all those that loathe it - most of PB, and Prince Charles etc - how much of this loathing is down to the destination being Rwanda?

    Say if we could get the agreement to send them to Libya (as the EU is doing) would that be OK? Egypt? What about Greenland or Argentina?

    Where is acceptable? France? Which we know is impossible?

    France is perfectly possible, since that is where they set our from by boat, and you wouldn't have to 'send' them at all.

    It would require a UK government willing to set up a permanent asylum processing centre in France, of course.
    But - even if you could do that - they’d just keep coming. France cannot police it’s entire Channel coast 24/7, and these people want to specifically migrate to the UK for various determined reasons

    And if they are rejected in France they will just jump on a boat anyway. They won’t go home to Somalia or Kabul

    Basically no one has any solution except some form of Rwanda. There has to be a deterrent factor, sadly
This discussion has been closed.