"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.
Hoping for some unguarded comments and unhelpful briefing from this.
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"
Who is 'we' and why do they need to know? Are these due an airing?
What a twat. "We need to know" what's it got to do with him?
World history is full of key turning points... Treaty of Versaille, the attempt on Hitler's life, the light aircraft crash involving Farage, things would have been oh so different......
I read Cyclefree's header, and learned from it, but I must confess that, when I saw those buildings, I thought, so that's where Biden and company are going to store Ukrainian grain. Those round buildings do remind me of grain silos.
Where is acceptable? France? Which we know is impossible?
Tow backs to France are possible. The RAN did tow backs to Indonesia without the sanction of the Indonesian government. Johnson just doesn't have the balls. They would probably only have to do a handful of boats before the traffic stopped.
The RAN method: Shit up the inhabitants of the boats with fruity language and ostentatious display of small arms. Put the refugees in a partially fuelled lifeboat and tow it to just outside territorial waters. Give one of them a few grand to drive it ashore. Welcome to Indonesia.
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?
On this you have a good point. The Rwandan government don’t come out of this insane modern day stab at colonialism very well either. PAY ATTENTION TO THAT YOU ARSENAL FANS.
Actually I didn’t need to shout, she’s sat next to me 😆
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.
The answer is France.
We need to process them there, stop them risking their lives crossing the Channel.
We also need to realise the UK has some unique pull factors, such as a history of immigrants from all over the world who have settled here, the relatively benign circumstances that immigrants have experienced here, I mean heck it is entirely possible the top four in the next Tory leadership contest/PM race are dark skinned people whose families came over from Pakistan, India, Iraq, and Uganda.
I remember seeing that chart of how the percentage of non white MEPs tumbled after we left.
The other factor which we don't mention enough is English being the second Lingua Franca for many people.
"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.
Er, on a point of PB order, I rather think, au contraire, that the pants were not empty.
"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.
Hoping for some unguarded comments and unhelpful briefing from this.
My gut feel is this policy doesn’t have many friends in the heads of commonwealth, both UK and Rwandan government walking into an absolute blast at them - so if there is any wriggle room for u-turning or watering down we can expect it then, just so both governments can escape in one piece.
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.
The answer is France.
We need to process them there, stop them risking their lives crossing the Channel.
We also need to realise the UK has some unique pull factors, such as a history of immigrants from all over the world who have settled here, the relatively benign circumstances that immigrants have experienced here, I mean heck it is entirely possible the top four in the next Tory leadership contest/PM race are dark skinned people whose families came over from Pakistan, India, Iraq, and Uganda.
I remember seeing that chart of how the percentage of non white MEPs tumbled after we left.
The other factor which we don't mention enough is English being the second Lingua Franca for many people.
Absolutely those pull factors are real, but they're real to potentially about 3 billion other people too.
There are two problems with your solution.
If they're processed in France, rejected, then get on a boat, then what do you do?
And if everyone processed is accepted, then wouldn't that just cause hundreds of thousands to go to France to be processed, as happened when Merkel said anyone who comes to Germany can stay there? And won't that result in vastly increasing the amount of misery, people smuggling and drowning in the Med as a result?
David Cameron had the right solution, many years ago. We should be taking refugees, but we should be taking them safely and legally from nations close to conflicts, not from a free-for-all for those prepared to pay people smugglers.
"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).
True in a sense, but it is a very limited view of public discourse. In lots of cases Joe Public genuinely would like to find a better way of dealing with things but isn't a policy expert. The whole point of people who stand as potential governments is that they do claim to know, understand and implement better. The sense that they are keeping it a secret is not very convincing. It is, at the moment Labour's big credibility risk.
Funnily enough, it is almost exactly consistent with the only precedent. In May 1991, 12 years after the May 1979 election, the average Labour lead was 4%.
Of course, Labour went on to lose the following election decisively in terms of votes cast. And the usual warning about midterm polls meaning the cube root of f all applies.
"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).
"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."
Bloody good answer from Lammy who was excellent on the rounds this morning. The lack of processing what they already have is very much big part of of the problem - this dysfunctional government couldn’t even process yoghurt into a smoothie.
Calling for Home Office to find 20 to 40% job cuts is background to failing on controlling our borders.
"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).
True in a sense, but it is a very limited view of public discourse. In lots of cases Joe Public genuinely would like to find a better way of dealing with things but isn't a policy expert. The whole point of people who stand as potential governments is that they do claim to know, understand and implement better. The sense that they are keeping it a secret is not very convincing. It is, at the moment Labour's big credibility risk.
As I've said before, "we can't tell you what our policy is in case it is implemented by the other side" is weak.
As an opposition party, having your policies implemented by whoever is in government gives you credibility!
Desperately unhelpful to Labour that the ECHR has stuck their oar into this one. High Court of court of Appeal granting an injunction would have been much more uncomfortable for the Tories policy & narrative wise.
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.
The answer is France.
We need to process them there, stop them risking their lives crossing the Channel.
We also need to realise the UK has some unique pull factors, such as a history of immigrants from all over the world who have settled here, the relatively benign circumstances that immigrants have experienced here, I mean heck it is entirely possible the top four in the next Tory leadership contest/PM race are dark skinned people whose families came over from Pakistan, India, Iraq, and Uganda.
I remember seeing that chart of how the percentage of non white MEPs tumbled after we left.
The other factor which we don't mention enough is English being the second Lingua Franca for many people.
Dunno, there are a few on here forever going on about the exceptional attractions of the UK and how English is THE Lingua Franca, a silence falls upon them when it comes to refugees however.
Regardless of that, doesn't the UK take in a much smaller proportion of asylum seekers and refugees than other western European countries?
Sitting in Time Out Lisbon. Done everything you lot recommend (cheers). Lisbon is a bit lively and a bit young for an old codger like me. Tomorrow off on the train to the Algarve for a party and a festival and some down time.
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.
The answer is France.
We need to process them there, stop them risking their lives crossing the Channel.
We also need to realise the UK has some unique pull factors, such as a history of immigrants from all over the world who have settled here, the relatively benign circumstances that immigrants have experienced here, I mean heck it is entirely possible the top four in the next Tory leadership contest/PM race are dark skinned people whose families came over from Pakistan, India, Iraq, and Uganda.
I remember seeing that chart of how the percentage of non white MEPs tumbled after we left.
The other factor which we don't mention enough is English being the second Lingua Franca for many people.
Dunno, there are a few on here forever going on about the exceptional attractions of the UK and how English is THE Lingua Franca, a silence falls upon them when it comes to refugees however.
Regardless of that, doesn't the UK take in a much smaller proportion of asylum seekers and refugees than other western European countries?
"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.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
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.
The answer is France.
We need to process them there, stop them risking their lives crossing the Channel.
We also need to realise the UK has some unique pull factors, such as a history of immigrants from all over the world who have settled here, the relatively benign circumstances that immigrants have experienced here, I mean heck it is entirely possible the top four in the next Tory leadership contest/PM race are dark skinned people whose families came over from Pakistan, India, Iraq, and Uganda.
I remember seeing that chart of how the percentage of non white MEPs tumbled after we left.
The other factor which we don't mention enough is English being the second Lingua Franca for many people.
Dunno, there are a few on here forever going on about the exceptional attractions of the UK and how English is THE Lingua Franca, a silence falls upon them when it comes to refugees however.
Regardless of that, doesn't the UK take in a much smaller proportion of asylum seekers and refugees than other western European countries?
I agree with Screaming Eagles in trying to imagine the pull of migration to UK so strong in these migrators that a lot of posters on here just don’t get that. A lot of posters just see them as economic migrants, not people fleeing Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan who already have an uncle here - how on earth did this government imagine they could put of them on a one way plane to Rwanda? People drawn here from countries because they are Gay, and could never have been open about it in their lives to meet another gay person - economic migrant? how on earth did this government imagine they could put of them on a one way plane to Rwanda?
Screaming Eagles mentions historic pull factors, but we are making history today. Look how Ukrainians view us, in high esteem, why is it so hard to imagine the migrators and asylum seekers holding us in the same special high esteem as the Ukrainians do? They don’t for one moment imagine UK is going to deport them to Rwanda, becuase they can’t get their head round UK would do that to them - that’s why this policy can’t work. Mrs Moore is their friend.
"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.
Er, on a point of PB order, I rather think, au contraire, that the pants were not empty.
The pants were a metaphoric term for rubbish - that the Tories gained hundred seats and government offering no ideas and we’re a policy vacuum for years, is fact.
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.
The answer is France.
We need to process them there, stop them risking their lives crossing the Channel.
We also need to realise the UK has some unique pull factors, such as a history of immigrants from all over the world who have settled here, the relatively benign circumstances that immigrants have experienced here, I mean heck it is entirely possible the top four in the next Tory leadership contest/PM race are dark skinned people whose families came over from Pakistan, India, Iraq, and Uganda.
I remember seeing that chart of how the percentage of non white MEPs tumbled after we left.
The other factor which we don't mention enough is English being the second Lingua Franca for many people.
Dunno, there are a few on here forever going on about the exceptional attractions of the UK and how English is THE Lingua Franca, a silence falls upon them when it comes to refugees however.
Regardless of that, doesn't the UK take in a much smaller proportion of asylum seekers and refugees than other western European countries?
I agree with Screaming Eagles in trying to imagine the pull of migration to UK so strong in these migrators that a lot of posters on here just don’t get that. A lot of posters just see them as economic migrants, not people fleeing Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan who already have an uncle here - how on earth did this government imagine they could put of them on a one way plane to Rwanda? People drawn here from countries because they are Gay, and could never have been open about it in their lives to meet another gay person - economic migrant? how on earth did this government imagine they could put of them on a one way plane to Rwanda?
Screaming Eagles mentions historic pull factors, but we are making history today. Look how Ukrainians view us, in high esteem, why is it so hard to imagine the migrators and asylum seekers holding us in the same special high esteem as the Ukrainians do? They don’t for one moment imagine UK is going to deport them to Rwanda, becuase they can’t get their head round UK would do that to them - that’s why this policy can’t work. Mrs Moore is their friend.
They are desperate to come here as they think it is a cushy number, the French don't pander to them. They are not in any danger in the many countries they pass through in an attempt to get the golden ticket. Perhaps some attention to the economic and homeless local refugees may be a better use of theirs was time and cash. If you provide a chauffeur service to UK WTF do you expect but shedloads signing Up for a boat ride.yet the arse holes stop Scotland getting immigrants.
"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.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
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 think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
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.
The answer is France.
We need to process them there, stop them risking their lives crossing the Channel.
We also need to realise the UK has some unique pull factors, such as a history of immigrants from all over the world who have settled here, the relatively benign circumstances that immigrants have experienced here, I mean heck it is entirely possible the top four in the next Tory leadership contest/PM race are dark skinned people whose families came over from Pakistan, India, Iraq, and Uganda.
I remember seeing that chart of how the percentage of non white MEPs tumbled after we left.
The other factor which we don't mention enough is English being the second Lingua Franca for many people.
Dunno, there are a few on here forever going on about the exceptional attractions of the UK and how English is THE Lingua Franca, a silence falls upon them when it comes to refugees however.
Regardless of that, doesn't the UK take in a much smaller proportion of asylum seekers and refugees than other western European countries?
I agree with Screaming Eagles in trying to imagine the pull of migration to UK so strong in these migrators that a lot of posters on here just don’t get that. A lot of posters just see them as economic migrants, not people fleeing Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan who already have an uncle here - how on earth did this government imagine they could put of them on a one way plane to Rwanda? People drawn here from countries because they are Gay, and could never have been open about it in their lives to meet another gay person - economic migrant? how on earth did this government imagine they could put of them on a one way plane to Rwanda?
Screaming Eagles mentions historic pull factors, but we are making history today. Look how Ukrainians view us, in high esteem, why is it so hard to imagine the migrators and asylum seekers holding us in the same special high esteem as the Ukrainians do? They don’t for one moment imagine UK is going to deport them to Rwanda, becuase they can’t get their head round UK would do that to them - that’s why this policy can’t work. Mrs Moore is their friend.
They are desperate to come here as they think it is a cushy number, the French don't pander to them. They are not in any danger in the many countries they pass through in an attempt to get the golden ticket. Perhaps some attention to the economic and homeless local refugees may be a better use of theirs was time and cash. If you provide a chauffeur service to UK WTF do you expect but shedloads signing Up for a boat ride.yet the arse holes stop Scotland getting immigrants.
I am amazed that no politicians on the left have the balls to argue that increased immigration and illegal immigrant amnesties would help ease staff shortages and ease inflation.
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"
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
There are lots of solutions, but you prefer to stick your fingers in your ears and sing "yayyayayayyaya can't hear you."
One could, you know, spend some actual money and create proper off-shore processing facilities, like the Australians do. It would be expensive, but it would be effective at preventing those whose applications are refused from disappearing into the blackmarket.
One could spend what the Dutch spend on asylum claims and processing (which is about 50% more than the UK, despite the fact that the Netherlands is a lot smaller than the UK), and therefore process 98% of claims from Syrian asylum seekers in 10 weeks.
And one could implement measures to stop the demand pull of the black market in the UK.
But the idea that shipping a few hundred out of 20,000 people to Rwanda is a deterrent is absurd. You must know that, right? You can't be that stupid?
Starmer knows the policy is popular with wedge voters. That's why he doesn't explicitly criticise it. Good news for the LDs and Greens who may get defections from Labour voters.
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 think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Just increase the number of bishops and hereditary peers in the House of Lords as a constraint on absolute democracy.
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.
The answer is France.
We need to process them there, stop them risking their lives crossing the Channel.
We also need to realise the UK has some unique pull factors, such as a history of immigrants from all over the world who have settled here, the relatively benign circumstances that immigrants have experienced here, I mean heck it is entirely possible the top four in the next Tory leadership contest/PM race are dark skinned people whose families came over from Pakistan, India, Iraq, and Uganda.
I remember seeing that chart of how the percentage of non white MEPs tumbled after we left.
The other factor which we don't mention enough is English being the second Lingua Franca for many people.
Dunno, there are a few on here forever going on about the exceptional attractions of the UK and how English is THE Lingua Franca, a silence falls upon them when it comes to refugees however.
Regardless of that, doesn't the UK take in a much smaller proportion of asylum seekers and refugees than other western European countries?
I agree with Screaming Eagles in trying to imagine the pull of migration to UK so strong in these migrators that a lot of posters on here just don’t get that. A lot of posters just see them as economic migrants, not people fleeing Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan who already have an uncle here - how on earth did this government imagine they could put of them on a one way plane to Rwanda? People drawn here from countries because they are Gay, and could never have been open about it in their lives to meet another gay person - economic migrant? how on earth did this government imagine they could put of them on a one way plane to Rwanda?
Screaming Eagles mentions historic pull factors, but we are making history today. Look how Ukrainians view us, in high esteem, why is it so hard to imagine the migrators and asylum seekers holding us in the same special high esteem as the Ukrainians do? They don’t for one moment imagine UK is going to deport them to Rwanda, becuase they can’t get their head round UK would do that to them - that’s why this policy can’t work. Mrs Moore is their friend.
They are desperate to come here as they think it is a cushy number, the French don't pander to them. They are not in any danger in the many countries they pass through in an attempt to get the golden ticket. Perhaps some attention to the economic and homeless local refugees may be a better use of theirs was time and cash. If you provide a chauffeur service to UK WTF do you expect but shedloads signing Up for a boat ride.yet the arse holes stop Scotland getting immigrants.
They want this royal throne of kings, this sceptered isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This Eden, demi-paradise, fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, fair and free and just in this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands they know this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this Is for them, they don’t want anything else, in their mind there is nowhere else quite like it. This is their paradise, their Eden. It calls them home.
And then Patel puts up a few posters in Calais saying “you could be sent to Rwanda”. The madness of this government and its supporters would be laugh at loud funny, if not so sad at the same time 😟
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.
The answer is France.
We need to process them there, stop them risking their lives crossing the Channel.
We also need to realise the UK has some unique pull factors, such as a history of immigrants from all over the world who have settled here, the relatively benign circumstances that immigrants have experienced here, I mean heck it is entirely possible the top four in the next Tory leadership contest/PM race are dark skinned people whose families came over from Pakistan, India, Iraq, and Uganda.
I remember seeing that chart of how the percentage of non white MEPs tumbled after we left.
The other factor which we don't mention enough is English being the second Lingua Franca for many people.
Dunno, there are a few on here forever going on about the exceptional attractions of the UK and how English is THE Lingua Franca, a silence falls upon them when it comes to refugees however.
Regardless of that, doesn't the UK take in a much smaller proportion of asylum seekers and refugees than other western European countries?
I agree with Screaming Eagles in trying to imagine the pull of migration to UK so strong in these migrators that a lot of posters on here just don’t get that. A lot of posters just see them as economic migrants, not people fleeing Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan who already have an uncle here - how on earth did this government imagine they could put of them on a one way plane to Rwanda? People drawn here from countries because they are Gay, and could never have been open about it in their lives to meet another gay person - economic migrant? how on earth did this government imagine they could put of them on a one way plane to Rwanda?
Screaming Eagles mentions historic pull factors, but we are making history today. Look how Ukrainians view us, in high esteem, why is it so hard to imagine the migrators and asylum seekers holding us in the same special high esteem as the Ukrainians do? They don’t for one moment imagine UK is going to deport them to Rwanda, becuase they can’t get their head round UK would do that to them - that’s why this policy can’t work. Mrs Moore is their friend.
They are desperate to come here as they think it is a cushy number, the French don't pander to them. They are not in any danger in the many countries they pass through in an attempt to get the golden ticket. Perhaps some attention to the economic and homeless local refugees may be a better use of theirs was time and cash. If you provide a chauffeur service to UK WTF do you expect but shedloads signing Up for a boat ride.yet the arse holes stop Scotland getting immigrants.
I am amazed that no politicians on the left have the balls to argue that increased immigration and illegal immigrant amnesties would help ease staff shortages and ease inflation.
{Sir Stuart Rose has entered the chat}
No left wing politician is going to state openly that rising wages has any connection to less immigration.
Any such statement would be on the side of a bus faster than you can say Nigel Farage.
"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.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
I would include landlords (and subletters) in that too.
If a landlord is renting you a place despite you having no legal right to be in the UK, then he should be subject to a fine. (Likewise if you sublet a room.)
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 think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Just increase the number of bishops and hereditary peers in the House of Lords as a constraint on absolute democracy.
Even if you did that, the Government can always ram legislation through on the basis that the House of Lords can only reject legislation three times. (And the three times have - on occasion - happened in a single night.)
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.
The answer is France.
We need to process them there, stop them risking their lives crossing the Channel.
We also need to realise the UK has some unique pull factors, such as a history of immigrants from all over the world who have settled here, the relatively benign circumstances that immigrants have experienced here, I mean heck it is entirely possible the top four in the next Tory leadership contest/PM race are dark skinned people whose families came over from Pakistan, India, Iraq, and Uganda.
I remember seeing that chart of how the percentage of non white MEPs tumbled after we left.
The other factor which we don't mention enough is English being the second Lingua Franca for many people.
Dunno, there are a few on here forever going on about the exceptional attractions of the UK and how English is THE Lingua Franca, a silence falls upon them when it comes to refugees however.
Regardless of that, doesn't the UK take in a much smaller proportion of asylum seekers and refugees than other western European countries?
I agree with Screaming Eagles in trying to imagine the pull of migration to UK so strong in these migrators that a lot of posters on here just don’t get that. A lot of posters just see them as economic migrants, not people fleeing Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan who already have an uncle here - how on earth did this government imagine they could put of them on a one way plane to Rwanda? People drawn here from countries because they are Gay, and could never have been open about it in their lives to meet another gay person - economic migrant? how on earth did this government imagine they could put of them on a one way plane to Rwanda?
Screaming Eagles mentions historic pull factors, but we are making history today. Look how Ukrainians view us, in high esteem, why is it so hard to imagine the migrators and asylum seekers holding us in the same special high esteem as the Ukrainians do? They don’t for one moment imagine UK is going to deport them to Rwanda, becuase they can’t get their head round UK would do that to them - that’s why this policy can’t work. Mrs Moore is their friend.
They are desperate to come here as they think it is a cushy number, the French don't pander to them. They are not in any danger in the many countries they pass through in an attempt to get the golden ticket. Perhaps some attention to the economic and homeless local refugees may be a better use of theirs was time and cash. If you provide a chauffeur service to UK WTF do you expect but shedloads signing Up for a boat ride.yet the arse holes stop Scotland getting immigrants.
They want this royal throne of kings, this sceptered isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This Eden, demi-paradise, fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, fair and free and just in this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands they know this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this Is for them, they don’t want anything else, in their mind there is nowhere else quite like it. This is their paradise, their Eden. It calls them home.
And then Patel puts up a few posters in Calais saying “you could be sent to Rwanda”. The madness of this government and its supporters would be laugh at loud funny, if not so sad at the same time 😟
Shakespeare got there first:
"...this dear dear land, Dear for her reputation through the world, Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it, Like to a tenement or pelting farm: England, bound in with the triumphant sea Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame, With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds: That England, that was wont to conquer others, Hath made a shameful conquest of itself...
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
There are lots of solutions, but you prefer to stick your fingers in your ears and sing "yayyayayayyaya can't hear you."
One could, you know, spend some actual money and create proper off-shore processing facilities, like the Australians do. It would be expensive, but it would be effective at preventing those whose applications are refused from disappearing into the blackmarket.
One could spend what the Dutch spend on asylum claims and processing (which is about 50% more than the UK, despite the fact that the Netherlands is a lot smaller than the UK), and therefore process 98% of claims from Syrian asylum seekers in 10 weeks.
And one could implement measures to stop the demand pull of the black market in the UK.
But the idea that shipping a few hundred out of 20,000 people to Rwanda is a deterrent is absurd. You must know that, right? You can't be that stupid?
"For every complex problem, there is an answer which is clear, simple, and wrong."
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 think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Just increase the number of bishops and hereditary peers in the House of Lords as a constraint on absolute democracy.
Even if you did that, the Government can always ram legislation through on the basis that the House of Lords can only reject legislation three times. (And the three times have - on occasion - happened in a single night.)
Create special constituencies for the universities so that the vote of ordinary people is diluted.
This is dangerous. It's delusional to think there's a simple trade to be made. Land for peace really means land for a pause in the war. it certainly won't mean an end to the conflict.
Still, now we get to see why Chamberlain was so popular after Munich.
"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.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
I would include landlords (and subletters) in that too.
If a landlord is renting you a place despite you having no legal right to be in the UK, then he should be subject to a fine. (Likewise if you sublet a room.)
How can rather a lot of people do that without an ID card or universal passport?
In UFO disclosure news, China's state backed Science and Technology daily announced the sky eye telescope had detected signs of alien civilisation before deleting the report. The prick tease continues
"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.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
I would include landlords (and subletters) in that too.
If a landlord is renting you a place despite you having no legal right to be in the UK, then he should be subject to a fine. (Likewise if you sublet a room.)
How can rather a lot of people do that without an ID card or universal passport?
How do they prove their right to work as it stands? I've always had to give my passport to my employer whenever I've changed companies.
"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.
Er, on a point of PB order, I rather think, au contraire, that the pants were not empty.
The pants were a metaphoric term for rubbish - that the Tories gained hundred seats and government offering no ideas and we’re a policy vacuum for years, is fact.
"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.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
I would include landlords (and subletters) in that too.
If a landlord is renting you a place despite you having no legal right to be in the UK, then he should be subject to a fine. (Likewise if you sublet a room.)
How can rather a lot of people do that without an ID card or universal passport?
How do they prove their right to work as it stands? I've always had to give my passport to my employer whenever I've changed companies.
It puzzles me. The existence of people in the UK who do not have a passport but are legitimately living and working here has to be allowed for. Not all natives have a passport, for instance.
New polling on the Rwanda policy shows 45% opposed and 35% in favour (the first I've seen with such a big gap). Strongly split along party lines, as has also been the case in other polls.
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.
So you don’t want any international courts or tribunals ever?
Pretty much.
Tribunals to resolve trade etc disputes are OK, so long as the government can pull the plug on it (with consequences if need be), but international courts? No thank you.
"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.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
I would include landlords (and subletters) in that too.
If a landlord is renting you a place despite you having no legal right to be in the UK, then he should be subject to a fine. (Likewise if you sublet a room.)
How can rather a lot of people do that without an ID card or universal passport?
How do they prove their right to work as it stands? I've always had to give my passport to my employer whenever I've changed companies.
It puzzles me. The existence of people in the UK who do not have a passport but are legitimately living and working here has to be allowed for. Not all natives have a passport, for instance.
A relative runs a building company - he only employees people who can verify their identity via passport or photo id. He has encountered absolutely no problem with this, strangely.
"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.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
I would include landlords (and subletters) in that too.
If a landlord is renting you a place despite you having no legal right to be in the UK, then he should be subject to a fine. (Likewise if you sublet a room.)
How can rather a lot of people do that without an ID card or universal passport?
How do they prove their right to work as it stands? I've always had to give my passport to my employer whenever I've changed companies.
It puzzles me. The existence of people in the UK who do not have a passport but are legitimately living and working here has to be allowed for. Not all natives have a passport, for instance.
Well, that was the underreported part of the Windrush Scandal. Apart from those who were deported, many more could not work or rent due to lack of ID. Being poor, and especially in London, they had neither passport nor driving license.
This is dangerous. It's delusional to think there's a simple trade to be made. Land for peace really means land for a pause in the war. it certainly won't mean an end to the conflict.
Still, now we get to see why Chamberlain was so popular after Munich.
Having said that, the poll's details are considerably less clearcut than the headline suggests, with a large number of responses being undecided on the issue - which given the likely complexities of any eventual outcome is not altogether unrealistic. ...But ECFR’s polling showed a clear divide between Europeans who want peace as soon as possible (35% across the 10 countries), and those who want justice – defined as restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity and holding Russia to account (22%).
A third “swing” group, who share the anti-Russian feelings of justice supporters but also the peace camp’s fears of escalation, accounted for about 20% of voters, the report found – with major distribution differences between countries...
"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.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
I would include landlords (and subletters) in that too.
If a landlord is renting you a place despite you having no legal right to be in the UK, then he should be subject to a fine. (Likewise if you sublet a room.)
How can rather a lot of people do that without an ID card or universal passport?
How do they prove their right to work as it stands? I've always had to give my passport to my employer whenever I've changed companies.
A restaurant I used to be an investor in (never be an investor in a restaurant) used to ask for NI number and a bank card. Most 18 year olds doing washing up jobs don't have passports.
Occasionally, HMRC would inform the restaurant that the NI number didn't match the name, or that it was invalid. And sometimes British kids (clearly British kids) would have no idea what their number was, or how to get it.
I believe things have improved slightly now, in that one can at least check that an NI number is technically valid.
"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.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
I would include landlords (and subletters) in that too.
If a landlord is renting you a place despite you having no legal right to be in the UK, then he should be subject to a fine. (Likewise if you sublet a room.)
How can rather a lot of people do that without an ID card or universal passport?
How do they prove their right to work as it stands? I've always had to give my passport to my employer whenever I've changed companies.
It puzzles me. The existence of people in the UK who do not have a passport but are legitimately living and working here has to be allowed for. Not all natives have a passport, for instance.
A relative runs a building company - he only employees people who can verify their identity via passport or photo id. He has encountered absolutely no problem with this, strangely.
"photo id" being a driving licence? Does that necessarily deminstrate the right to work and live?
"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.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
I would include landlords (and subletters) in that too.
If a landlord is renting you a place despite you having no legal right to be in the UK, then he should be subject to a fine. (Likewise if you sublet a room.)
How can rather a lot of people do that without an ID card or universal passport?
How do they prove their right to work as it stands? I've always had to give my passport to my employer whenever I've changed companies.
It puzzles me. The existence of people in the UK who do not have a passport but are legitimately living and working here has to be allowed for. Not all natives have a passport, for instance.
From October onwards the new online checks assume people have a passport - given how many firms love to outsource difficult tasks I suspect some firms will just reject people who don't have a valid passport.
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"
Might be a damned foreigner. What do they know about law and order, hanging and flogging?
It does raise the question of what decision a domestic replacement for the ECHR, set up as a guardian of human rights, might have decided. Quite possibly also to have granted the injunction, unless it had deliberately been set up as a rubber stamp for government actions.
"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.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
I would include landlords (and subletters) in that too.
If a landlord is renting you a place despite you having no legal right to be in the UK, then he should be subject to a fine. (Likewise if you sublet a room.)
How can rather a lot of people do that without an ID card or universal passport?
How do they prove their right to work as it stands? I've always had to give my passport to my employer whenever I've changed companies.
A restaurant I used to be an investor in (never be an investor in a restaurant) used to ask for NI number and a bank card. Most 18 year olds doing washing up jobs don't have passports.
Occasionally, HMRC would inform the restaurant that the NI number didn't match the name, or that it was invalid. And sometimes British kids (clearly British kids) would have no idea what their number was, or how to get it.
I believe things have improved slightly now, in that one can at least check that an NI number is technically valid.
Interesting. Though a NI number in itself is not complete - especially as for some reason which escapes me HMRC give me a separate tax system number (possibly this is more generally to allow for e.g. deceased person's estate, trust, etc.?).
I wonder how many British-born might end up with a free trip to Africa for being disorganised and/or the children of disorganised parents?
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 think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Completely disagreed. The USA ought to have shown in recent years just how useless a written constitution is in protecting civil liberties, if the government wants to water down or reverse those liberties then whoever controls the courts controls how the constitution is interpreted. See the USA or the ECHR Victor Orban's Hungary.
The way to ensure that we have a liberal society is to value Jews and others so that we won't elect a government that would do that, and if an horrendous government tried to do that, then we'd oust them and reverse it - not put our faith in documents like constitutions or international courts etc that are not accountable.
"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.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
I would include landlords (and subletters) in that too.
If a landlord is renting you a place despite you having no legal right to be in the UK, then he should be subject to a fine. (Likewise if you sublet a room.)
How can rather a lot of people do that without an ID card or universal passport?
How do they prove their right to work as it stands? I've always had to give my passport to my employer whenever I've changed companies.
It puzzles me. The existence of people in the UK who do not have a passport but are legitimately living and working here has to be allowed for. Not all natives have a passport, for instance.
From October onwards the new online checks assume people have a passport - given how many firms love to outsource difficult tasks I suspect some firms will just reject people who don't have a valid passport.
If they are short of labour? I've already seen a number of employers move to accepting out-of-date passports. Or just birth certificates. And given that it is taking up to 10 weeks, and sometimes more to renew a passport... ID card would be simpler all round.
"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.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
I would include landlords (and subletters) in that too.
If a landlord is renting you a place despite you having no legal right to be in the UK, then he should be subject to a fine. (Likewise if you sublet a room.)
How can rather a lot of people do that without an ID card or universal passport?
How do they prove their right to work as it stands? I've always had to give my passport to my employer whenever I've changed companies.
It puzzles me. The existence of people in the UK who do not have a passport but are legitimately living and working here has to be allowed for. Not all natives have a passport, for instance.
From October onwards the new online checks assume people have a passport - given how many firms love to outsource difficult tasks I suspect some firms will just reject people who don't have a valid passport.
If they are short of labour? I've already seen a number of employers move to accepting out-of-date passports. Or just birth certificates. And given that it is taking up to 10 weeks, and sometimes more to renew a passport... ID card would be simpler all round.
Including non-UK passport holders but legit residents? Yep.
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
Perhaps listen to the historians who talked about the legacy of Magna Carta - this series is pretty good on what it is, why it happened and its legacy - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04wwkh8.
Though Christianity certainly has influenced the way our ideas of democracy and human rights have developed, an argument explained in some detail in 2 books by Larry Siedentop -
"Democracy in Europe" and "Inventing the Individual". Both are very well worth reading.
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 think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Completely disagreed. The USA ought to have shown in recent years just how useless a written constitution is in protecting civil liberties, if the government wants to water down or reverse those liberties then whoever controls the courts controls how the constitution is interpreted. See the USA or the ECHR Victor Orban's Hungary.
The way to ensure that we have a liberal society is to value Jews and others so that we won't elect a government that would do that, and if an horrendous government tried to do that, then we'd oust them and reverse it - not put our faith in documents like constitutions or international courts etc that are not accountable.
That's a great argument for the ECHR - a court the government will never be able to control.
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 think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Completely disagreed. The USA ought to have shown in recent years just how useless a written constitution is in protecting civil liberties, if the government wants to water down or reverse those liberties then whoever controls the courts controls how the constitution is interpreted. See the USA or the ECHR Victor Orban's Hungary.
The way to ensure that we have a liberal society is to value Jews and others so that we won't elect a government that would do that, and if an horrendous government tried to do that, then we'd oust them and reverse it - not put our faith in documents like constitutions or international courts etc that are not accountable.
That's a great argument for the ECHR - a court the government will never be able to control.
Presumably Mr Churchill grasped that key point when he helped set it up? (Not familiar with the history myself.)
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 think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Completely disagreed. The USA ought to have shown in recent years just how useless a written constitution is in protecting civil liberties, if the government wants to water down or reverse those liberties then whoever controls the courts controls how the constitution is interpreted. See the USA or the ECHR Victor Orban's Hungary.
The way to ensure that we have a liberal society is to value Jews and others so that we won't elect a government that would do that, and if an horrendous government tried to do that, then we'd oust them and reverse it - not put our faith in documents like constitutions or international courts etc that are not accountable.
That's a great argument for the ECHR - a court the government will never be able to control.
No, its not. Its a terrible argument for it.
If a bad government arises then we the voting public can hold them to account and kick them out.
If bad people take control of the ECHR, then how do you kick them out?
The Council of Europe has done nothing to stop French mistreatment of migrants that makes their plight so bad they need to come here, or stop Victor Orban ending democratic norms in Hungary, or even stop Vladimir Putin's reign of terror where critics are disappeared, have accidents or are poisoned. All while under the jurisdiction of the ECHR and the Council of Europe that gave Russia back its voting rights after Russia threatened to withhold funding.
I have more faith in the British voting public to kick out undesirable governments than I do unelected bodies like the Council of Europe that thought Vladimir Putin's coin was worth more than the human rights the body was set up to protect.
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 think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Completely disagreed. The USA ought to have shown in recent years just how useless a written constitution is in protecting civil liberties, if the government wants to water down or reverse those liberties then whoever controls the courts controls how the constitution is interpreted. See the USA or the ECHR Victor Orban's Hungary.
The way to ensure that we have a liberal society is to value Jews and others so that we won't elect a government that would do that, and if an horrendous government tried to do that, then we'd oust them and reverse it - not put our faith in documents like constitutions or international courts etc that are not accountable.
That's a great argument for the ECHR - a court the government will never be able to control.
No, its not. Its a terrible argument for it.
If a bad government arises then we the voting public can hold them to account and kick them out.
If bad people take control of the ECHR, then how do you kick them out?
The Council of Europe has done nothing to stop French mistreatment of migrants that makes their plight so bad they need to come here, or stop Victor Orban ending democratic norms in Hungary, or even stop Vladimir Putin's reign of terror where critics are disappeared, have accidents or are poisoned. All while under the jurisdiction of the ECHR and the Council of Europe that gave Russia back its voting rights after Russia threatened to withhold funding.
I have more faith in the British voting public to kick out undesirable governments than I do unelected bodies like the Council of Europe that thought Vladimir Putin's coin was worth more than the human rights the body was set up to protect.
What if a bad government arises which doesn't permit us to kick them out?
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 think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Completely disagreed. The USA ought to have shown in recent years just how useless a written constitution is in protecting civil liberties, if the government wants to water down or reverse those liberties then whoever controls the courts controls how the constitution is interpreted. See the USA or the ECHR Victor Orban's Hungary.
The way to ensure that we have a liberal society is to value Jews and others so that we won't elect a government that would do that, and if an horrendous government tried to do that, then we'd oust them and reverse it - not put our faith in documents like constitutions or international courts etc that are not accountable.
That's a great argument for the ECHR - a court the government will never be able to control.
Presumably Mr Churchill grasped that key point when he helped set it up? (Not familiar with the history myself.)
Churchill didn't set up the Court.
Churchill was involved in setting up the Convention, which was to be binding upon domestic courts at the time, not overseas courts, they came later.
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 think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Completely disagreed. The USA ought to have shown in recent years just how useless a written constitution is in protecting civil liberties, if the government wants to water down or reverse those liberties then whoever controls the courts controls how the constitution is interpreted. See the USA or the ECHR Victor Orban's Hungary.
The way to ensure that we have a liberal society is to value Jews and others so that we won't elect a government that would do that, and if an horrendous government tried to do that, then we'd oust them and reverse it - not put our faith in documents like constitutions or international courts etc that are not accountable.
That's a great argument for the ECHR - a court the government will never be able to control.
No, its not. Its a terrible argument for it.
If a bad government arises then we the voting public can hold them to account and kick them out.
If bad people take control of the ECHR, then how do you kick them out?
The Council of Europe has done nothing to stop French mistreatment of migrants that makes their plight so bad they need to come here, or stop Victor Orban ending democratic norms in Hungary, or even stop Vladimir Putin's reign of terror where critics are disappeared, have accidents or are poisoned. All while under the jurisdiction of the ECHR and the Council of Europe that gave Russia back its voting rights after Russia threatened to withhold funding.
I have more faith in the British voting public to kick out undesirable governments than I do unelected bodies like the Council of Europe that thought Vladimir Putin's coin was worth more than the human rights the body was set up to protect.
What if a bad government arises which doesn't permit us to kick them out?
Then we need to be prepared to fight for our rights. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
If the EHCR decided art 2 of the HRA was interpreted by the judges to ban elective abortion, would it have the same defenders as it does today ?
Complete straw man, playing to the gallery. You might as well ask if we’d support it if the court interpreted the convention as meaning we must slaughter our first borns. We wouldn’t but it hasn’t.
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.
The answer is France.
We need to process them there, stop them risking their lives crossing the Channel.
We also need to realise the UK has some unique pull factors, such as a history of immigrants from all over the world who have settled here, the relatively benign circumstances that immigrants have experienced here, I mean heck it is entirely possible the top four in the next Tory leadership contest/PM race are dark skinned people whose families came over from Pakistan, India, Iraq, and Uganda.
I remember seeing that chart of how the percentage of non white MEPs tumbled after we left.
The other factor which we don't mention enough is English being the second Lingua Franca for many people.
Dunno, there are a few on here forever going on about the exceptional attractions of the UK and how English is THE Lingua Franca, a silence falls upon them when it comes to refugees however.
Regardless of that, doesn't the UK take in a much smaller proportion of asylum seekers and refugees than other western European countries?
I agree with Screaming Eagles in trying to imagine the pull of migration to UK so strong in these migrators that a lot of posters on here just don’t get that. A lot of posters just see them as economic migrants, not people fleeing Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan who already have an uncle here - how on earth did this government imagine they could put of them on a one way plane to Rwanda? People drawn here from countries because they are Gay, and could never have been open about it in their lives to meet another gay person - economic migrant? how on earth did this government imagine they could put of them on a one way plane to Rwanda?
Screaming Eagles mentions historic pull factors, but we are making history today. Look how Ukrainians view us, in high esteem, why is it so hard to imagine the migrators and asylum seekers holding us in the same special high esteem as the Ukrainians do? They don’t for one moment imagine UK is going to deport them to Rwanda, becuase they can’t get their head round UK would do that to them - that’s why this policy can’t work. Mrs Moore is their friend.
They are desperate to come here as they think it is a cushy number, the French don't pander to them. They are not in any danger in the many countries they pass through in an attempt to get the golden ticket. Perhaps some attention to the economic and homeless local refugees may be a better use of theirs was time and cash. If you provide a chauffeur service to UK WTF do you expect but shedloads signing Up for a boat ride.yet the arse holes stop Scotland getting immigrants.
They want this royal throne of kings, this sceptered isle, This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, This Eden, demi-paradise, fortress built by Nature for herself Against infection and the hand of war, This happy breed of men, fair and free and just in this little world, This precious stone set in the silver sea, Which serves it in the office of a wall Or as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands they know this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this Is for them, they don’t want anything else, in their mind there is nowhere else quite like it. This is their paradise, their Eden. It calls them home.
And then Patel puts up a few posters in Calais saying “you could be sent to Rwanda”. The madness of this government and its supporters would be laugh at loud funny, if not so sad at the same time 😟
Shakespeare got there first:
"...this dear dear land, Dear for her reputation through the world, Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it, Like to a tenement or pelting farm: England, bound in with the triumphant sea Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame, With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds: That England, that was wont to conquer others, Hath made a shameful conquest of itself...
Another brilliant quote - Shakespeare was all over this.
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.
So you don’t want any international courts or tribunals ever?
Pretty much.
Tribunals to resolve trade etc disputes are OK, so long as the government can pull the plug on it (with consequences if need be), but international courts? No thank you.
So, no international war crimes court, for instance? A perfectly valid position, just a strong one.
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
Perhaps listen to the historians who talked about the legacy of Magna Carta - this series is pretty good on what it is, why it happened and its legacy - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04wwkh8.
Though Christianity certainly has influenced the way our ideas of democracy and human rights have developed, an argument explained in some detail in 2 books by Larry Siedentop -
"Democracy in Europe" and "Inventing the Individual". Both are very well worth reading.
I am on the beach in Cefalu so can't listen to stuff but your claim is just demonstrably wrong. Bugger Christianity here's the principle stated by Greek, OT and ancient Chinese sources so you can't claim a little local restatement of it by a handful of thuggish toffs bullying a weak king as a "gift to the world," that is like saying that Cheddar proves that the English invented cheese
We didn't even get it right, what with the glaringly barbaric exception that the monarch is above the law
"The Bible says that "You and the foreigner shall be the same before the Lord: The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigner residing among you." (Numbers 15:15f)
The legalist philosopher Guan Zhong (720–645 BC) declared that “the monarch and his subjects no matter how great and small they are complying with the law will be the great order”.[7]
The 431 BCE funeral oration of Pericles, recorded in Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War, includes a passage praising the equality among the free male citizens of the Athenian democracy:
If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if to social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way.[8]
New polling on the Rwanda policy shows 45% opposed and 35% in favour (the first I've seen with such a big gap). Strongly split along party lines, as has also been the case in other polls.
If the EHCR decided art 2 of the HRA was interpreted by the judges to ban elective abortion, would it have the same defenders as it does today ?
Complete straw man, playing to the gallery. You might as well ask if we’d support it if the court interpreted the convention as meaning we must slaughter our first borns. We wouldn’t but it hasn’t.
Its not a straw man. Either you accept the courts jurisdiction is an immutable concept we must accept, even if we disagree with its rulings, or you don't in which case how do we determine whether a courts rulings are OK or not?
The democratic way to determine whether a court's rules are acceptable or not is via Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament sets the law, courts interpret the law, Parliament can change it if required, voters can change the Parliament.
If you're prepared to say you're willing to reject the court's rulings, then how else other than Parliamentary sovereignty is it meant to be settled?
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 think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Completely disagreed. The USA ought to have shown in recent years just how useless a written constitution is in protecting civil liberties, if the government wants to water down or reverse those liberties then whoever controls the courts controls how the constitution is interpreted. See the USA or the ECHR Victor Orban's Hungary.
The way to ensure that we have a liberal society is to value Jews and others so that we won't elect a government that would do that, and if an horrendous government tried to do that, then we'd oust them and reverse it - not put our faith in documents like constitutions or international courts etc that are not accountable.
That's a great argument for the ECHR - a court the government will never be able to control.
Presumably Mr Churchill grasped that key point when he helped set it up? (Not familiar with the history myself.)
I rather think he thought what I think. The convention is so clearly drafted and commonsensical that no British Government should ever have an issue with it and there isn’t much room for judicial activism (again, on this point the ECJ was a very different creature and so I’m glad it’s gone).
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 think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Completely disagreed. The USA ought to have shown in recent years just how useless a written constitution is in protecting civil liberties, if the government wants to water down or reverse those liberties then whoever controls the courts controls how the constitution is interpreted. See the USA or the ECHR Victor Orban's Hungary.
The way to ensure that we have a liberal society is to value Jews and others so that we won't elect a government that would do that, and if an horrendous government tried to do that, then we'd oust them and reverse it - not put our faith in documents like constitutions or international courts etc that are not accountable.
That's a great argument for the ECHR - a court the government will never be able to control.
Presumably Mr Churchill grasped that key point when he helped set it up? (Not familiar with the history myself.)
I’m surprised that the “why are you trashing Winston Churchill’s legacy Boris?” argument isn’t deployed more here.
The Good Friday Agreement is such a vital obligation for the UK government that it is prepared to break international treaty commitments and spark a trade war to preserve it.
The UK is prepared to tear up the Good Friday Agreement in order to leave the ECHR.
Hmmmm.
It's almost as if all of this is performative bollocks.
If the EHCR decided art 2 of the HRA was interpreted by the judges to ban elective abortion, would it have the same defenders as it does today ?
Complete straw man, playing to the gallery. You might as well ask if we’d support it if the court interpreted the convention as meaning we must slaughter our first borns. We wouldn’t but it hasn’t.
Its not a straw man. Either you accept the courts jurisdiction is an immutable concept we must accept, even if we disagree with its rulings, or you don't in which case how do we determine whether a courts rulings are OK or not?
The democratic way to determine whether a court's rules are acceptable or not is via Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament sets the law, courts interpret the law, Parliament can change it if required, voters can change the Parliament.
If you're prepared to say you're willing to reject the court's rulings, then how else other than Parliamentary sovereignty is it meant to be settled?
Erm, it’s perfectly consistent to believe in an empowered international court but accept there could come a point at which one felt it was time to leave. I haven’t said anyone is wrong in principle to want to do so (we must always have that right just like we can always choose to break any treaty) just wrong in practice since nothing has been done here to warrant it and the benefits of having it far outweigh any perceived harm done.
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.
So you don’t want any international courts or tribunals ever?
Pretty much.
Tribunals to resolve trade etc disputes are OK, so long as the government can pull the plug on it (with consequences if need be), but international courts? No thank you.
So, no international war crimes court, for instance? A perfectly valid position, just a strong one.
No, I think the ICC* is an utter farce. As if Putin is shaking in his boots at going to the Hague.
Crimes can and have been prosecuted after the fact repeatedly from WWII to Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia without the creation of a permanent court.
The USA, Russia, China etc all aren't part of the court anyway.
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 think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Completely disagreed. The USA ought to have shown in recent years just how useless a written constitution is in protecting civil liberties, if the government wants to water down or reverse those liberties then whoever controls the courts controls how the constitution is interpreted. See the USA or the ECHR Victor Orban's Hungary.
The way to ensure that we have a liberal society is to value Jews and others so that we won't elect a government that would do that, and if an horrendous government tried to do that, then we'd oust them and reverse it - not put our faith in documents like constitutions or international courts etc that are not accountable.
That's a great argument for the ECHR - a court the government will never be able to control.
Presumably Mr Churchill grasped that key point when he helped set it up? (Not familiar with the history myself.)
I’m surprised that the “why are you trashing Winston Churchill’s legacy Boris?” argument isn’t deployed more here.
I mean, that argument is bollocks. Like when folk drew attention to Soames bringing his grandson. So what? He was a great man but his time has been and gone.
If the EHCR decided art 2 of the HRA was interpreted by the judges to ban elective abortion, would it have the same defenders as it does today ?
Complete straw man, playing to the gallery. You might as well ask if we’d support it if the court interpreted the convention as meaning we must slaughter our first borns. We wouldn’t but it hasn’t.
Its not a straw man. Either you accept the courts jurisdiction is an immutable concept we must accept, even if we disagree with its rulings, or you don't in which case how do we determine whether a courts rulings are OK or not?
The democratic way to determine whether a court's rules are acceptable or not is via Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament sets the law, courts interpret the law, Parliament can change it if required, voters can change the Parliament.
If you're prepared to say you're willing to reject the court's rulings, then how else other than Parliamentary sovereignty is it meant to be settled?
Erm, it’s perfectly consistent to believe in an empowered international court but accept there could come a point at which one felt it was time to leave. I haven’t said anyone is wrong in principle to want to do so (we must always have that right just like we can always choose to break any treaty) just wrong in practice since nothing has been done here to warrant it and the benefits of having it far outweigh any perceived harm done.
I think the harm for infantilising politics so that people put their faith in institutions instead of vigilance is real.
I think the harm for infantilising politics so that governments can easily claim "oh we can't deal with this they won't let us" is real.
The whole point of Brexit was to take back control so that the governments we elect set our laws, and if we're not happy with the laws, we can kick out those governments. That should apply here. If you're not happy with this government you should be able to kick it out and change its laws, there is no benefit to secondary courts that stood idly by letting Vladimir Putin vote on how they were run because they were blackmailed by his cash.
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.
So you don’t want any international courts or tribunals ever?
Pretty much.
Tribunals to resolve trade etc disputes are OK, so long as the government can pull the plug on it (with consequences if need be), but international courts? No thank you.
So, no international war crimes court, for instance? A perfectly valid position, just a strong one.
No, I think the ICC* is an utter farce. As if Putin is shaking in his boots at going to the Hague.
Crimes can and have been prosecuted after the fact repeatedly from WWII to Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia without the creation of a permanent court.
The USA, Russia, China etc all aren't part of the court anyway.
* Insert usual ECB joke here.
So we tell the rest of the world “it’s ok, the big boys will decide how to fix it after the fact, and prosecute what we think needs prosecuting at the time”.
"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.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
I would include landlords (and subletters) in that too.
If a landlord is renting you a place despite you having no legal right to be in the UK, then he should be subject to a fine. (Likewise if you sublet a room.)
How can rather a lot of people do that without an ID card or universal passport?
How do they prove their right to work as it stands? I've always had to give my passport to my employer whenever I've changed companies.
It puzzles me. The existence of people in the UK who do not have a passport but are legitimately living and working here has to be allowed for. Not all natives have a passport, for instance.
A relative runs a building company - he only employees people who can verify their identity via passport or photo id. He has encountered absolutely no problem with this, strangely.
"photo id" being a driving licence? Does that necessarily deminstrate the right to work and live?
Many of the workers being from Eastern Europe, he would accept national ID cards from Poland, for example. And yes, since Brexit….
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 think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Completely disagreed. The USA ought to have shown in recent years just how useless a written constitution is in protecting civil liberties, if the government wants to water down or reverse those liberties then whoever controls the courts controls how the constitution is interpreted. See the USA or the ECHR Victor Orban's Hungary.
The way to ensure that we have a liberal society is to value Jews and others so that we won't elect a government that would do that, and if an horrendous government tried to do that, then we'd oust them and reverse it - not put our faith in documents like constitutions or international courts etc that are not accountable.
I'm not saying that the US system is perfect (it's clearly not). But your idea of protection of rights is ensuring that someone illeberal doesn't get elected. That's not protection, that's hope and pray.
In the US, during the Trump era, the Supreme Court repeatedly stepped in and said "no, that would be unconstitutional".
Most political systems have checks and balances. That's not an accident.
You seem to propose getting rid of all checks and balances.
And, by the way, this is a particular issue in the UK, because FPTP can create very disproportionate results. In 2005, a Labour government got a majority not very different to Boris Johnson's on just 35% of the vote.
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 think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Completely disagreed. The USA ought to have shown in recent years just how useless a written constitution is in protecting civil liberties, if the government wants to water down or reverse those liberties then whoever controls the courts controls how the constitution is interpreted. See the USA or the ECHR Victor Orban's Hungary.
The way to ensure that we have a liberal society is to value Jews and others so that we won't elect a government that would do that, and if an horrendous government tried to do that, then we'd oust them and reverse it - not put our faith in documents like constitutions or international courts etc that are not accountable.
That's a great argument for the ECHR - a court the government will never be able to control.
Presumably Mr Churchill grasped that key point when he helped set it up? (Not familiar with the history myself.)
I’m surprised that the “why are you trashing Winston Churchill’s legacy Boris?” argument isn’t deployed more here.
I mean, that argument is bollocks. Like when folk drew attention to Soames bringing his grandson. So what? He was a great man but his time has been and gone.
Well, yes, but so is almost all the government’s bleating today. I’m not above a little political sophistry tapping into unthinking patriotism.
If the EHCR decided art 2 of the HRA was interpreted by the judges to ban elective abortion, would it have the same defenders as it does today ?
Complete straw man, playing to the gallery. You might as well ask if we’d support it if the court interpreted the convention as meaning we must slaughter our first borns. We wouldn’t but it hasn’t.
Its not a straw man. Either you accept the courts jurisdiction is an immutable concept we must accept, even if we disagree with its rulings, or you don't in which case how do we determine whether a courts rulings are OK or not?
The democratic way to determine whether a court's rules are acceptable or not is via Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament sets the law, courts interpret the law, Parliament can change it if required, voters can change the Parliament.
If you're prepared to say you're willing to reject the court's rulings, then how else other than Parliamentary sovereignty is it meant to be settled?
Erm, it’s perfectly consistent to believe in an empowered international court but accept there could come a point at which one felt it was time to leave. I haven’t said anyone is wrong in principle to want to do so (we must always have that right just like we can always choose to break any treaty) just wrong in practice since nothing has been done here to warrant it and the benefits of having it far outweigh any perceived harm done.
I think the harm for infantilising politics so that people put their faith in institutions instead of vigilance is real.
I think the harm for infantilising politics so that governments can easily claim "oh we can't deal with this they won't let us" is real.
The whole point of Brexit was to take back control so that the governments we elect set our laws, and if we're not happy with the laws, we can kick out those governments. That should apply here. If you're not happy with this government you should be able to kick it out and change its laws, there is no benefit to secondary courts that stood idly by letting Vladimir Putin vote on how they were run because they were blackmailed by his cash.
This is pretty much the major reason I voted Leave - I was fed up with governments quietly instigating EU directives and then, when they came to be implemented domestically, loudly saying "there's nothing we can do about it, it's an EU directive".
"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.
I'm probably the wrong poster - I trotted out a number of measures to suppress demand and curb supply.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Transponders wouldn’t work - if the boat is intercepted by Border Force/Navy/RNLI, they are going to take the people off and confiscate the boat anyway.
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence. - Half goes to the witness who gives evidence - If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
I would include landlords (and subletters) in that too.
If a landlord is renting you a place despite you having no legal right to be in the UK, then he should be subject to a fine. (Likewise if you sublet a room.)
How can rather a lot of people do that without an ID card or universal passport?
How do they prove their right to work as it stands? I've always had to give my passport to my employer whenever I've changed companies.
It puzzles me. The existence of people in the UK who do not have a passport but are legitimately living and working here has to be allowed for. Not all natives have a passport, for instance.
A relative runs a building company - he only employees people who can verify their identity via passport or photo id. He has encountered absolutely no problem with this, strangely.
"photo id" being a driving licence? Does that necessarily deminstrate the right to work and live?
Many of the workers being from Eastern Europe, he would accept national ID cards from Poland, for example. And yes, since Brexit….
He accepts a national ID card from Poland, etc. combined with a share code?
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 think it's complicated in the UK by the lack of a written constitution.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Completely disagreed. The USA ought to have shown in recent years just how useless a written constitution is in protecting civil liberties, if the government wants to water down or reverse those liberties then whoever controls the courts controls how the constitution is interpreted. See the USA or the ECHR Victor Orban's Hungary.
The way to ensure that we have a liberal society is to value Jews and others so that we won't elect a government that would do that, and if an horrendous government tried to do that, then we'd oust them and reverse it - not put our faith in documents like constitutions or international courts etc that are not accountable.
I'm not saying that the US system is perfect (it's clearly not). But your idea of protection of rights is ensuring that someone illeberal doesn't get elected. That's not protection, that's hope and pray.
In the US, during the Trump era, the Supreme Court repeatedly stepped in and said "no, that would be unconstitutional".
Most political systems have checks and balances. That's not an accident.
You seem to propose getting rid of all checks and balances.
And, by the way, this is a particular issue in the UK, because FPTP can create very disproportionate results. In 2005, a Labour government got a majority not very different to Boris Johnson's on just 35% of the vote.
Yes the double edged sword of the British system is that much of the time the Government in power can get anything and everything through. A curse as well as a blessing.
Winston Churchill was instrumental in setting up the ECHR after the Second World War . Should the UK stay in this or leave I’d expect a large majority to say stay .
The issue at times in the UK has been judges interpretation of that .
You’re never going to agree with every ruling but that’s par for the course .
For no 10 nothing is sacred , that is they are willing to dismantle any institution that doesn’t agree with them .
This is where authoritarianism starts , turn people against judges , try and dupe then into accepting less rights etc.
And a simple question for people . Will UK democracy be in a better place years down the line if they win the next general election ?
They are slowly chiseling away at the UKs foundations , bit by bit .
For the good of the country they must be removed and spend a period of time in opposition where they might hopefully come to their senses .
Surprise, surprise, they are behind. Expectations management, of course.
Its like a deep soapy expectations management bath. Ooooh its so close! We have a chance but only if everyone pulls together! Soooooo close. Lol
Sentence one: The Liberal Democrats plan to flood Tiverton and Honiton with activists after internal polling suggested the party was only marginally trailing the Conservatives before next week’s byelection in the Devon constituency.
Yeah. Like they weren't planning to flood it with activists anyway.
Winston Churchill was instrumental in setting up the ECHR after the Second World War . Should the UK stay in this or leave I’d expect a large majority to say stay .
The issue at times in the UK has been judges interpretation of that .
You’re never going to agree with every ruling but that’s par for the course .
For no 10 nothing is sacred , that is they are willing to dismantle any institution that doesn’t agree with them .
This is where authoritarianism starts , turn people against judges , try and dupe then into accepting less rights etc.
And a simple question for people . Will UK democracy be in a better place years down the line if they win the next general election ?
They are slowly chiseling away at the UKs foundations , bit by bit .
For the good of the country they must be removed and spend a period of time in opposition where they might hopefully come to their senses .
As a rule, I think Governments go mad after two terms. This one especially so. Alternating two terms of each side, that’s the sweet spot.
Winston Churchill was instrumental in setting up the ECHR after the Second World War . Should the UK stay in this or leave I’d expect a large majority to say stay .
The issue at times in the UK has been judges interpretation of that .
You’re never going to agree with every ruling but that’s par for the course .
For no 10 nothing is sacred , that is they are willing to dismantle any institution that doesn’t agree with them .
This is where authoritarianism starts , turn people against judges , try and dupe then into accepting less rights etc.
And a simple question for people . Will UK democracy be in a better place years down the line if they win the next general election ?
They are slowly chiseling away at the UKs foundations , bit by bit .
For the good of the country they must be removed and spend a period of time in opposition where they might hopefully come to their senses .
As a rule, I think Governments go mad after two terms. This one especially so. Alternating two terms of each side, that’s the sweet spot.
Well, arguably they’ve had three and gone extra bonkers.
Comments
World history is full of key turning points... Treaty of Versaille, the attempt on Hitler's life, the light aircraft crash involving Farage, things would have been oh so different......
The RAN method:
Shit up the inhabitants of the boats with fruity language and ostentatious display of small arms.
Put the refugees in a partially fuelled lifeboat and tow it to just outside territorial waters.
Give one of them a few grand to drive it ashore. Welcome to Indonesia.
Actually I didn’t need to shout, she’s sat next to me 😆
We need to process them there, stop them risking their lives crossing the Channel.
We also need to realise the UK has some unique pull factors, such as a history of immigrants from all over the world who have settled here, the relatively benign circumstances that immigrants have experienced here, I mean heck it is entirely possible the top four in the next Tory leadership contest/PM race are dark skinned people whose families came over from Pakistan, India, Iraq, and Uganda.
I remember seeing that chart of how the percentage of non white MEPs tumbled after we left.
The other factor which we don't mention enough is English being the second Lingua Franca for many people.
There are two problems with your solution.
If they're processed in France, rejected, then get on a boat, then what do you do?
And if everyone processed is accepted, then wouldn't that just cause hundreds of thousands to go to France to be processed, as happened when Merkel said anyone who comes to Germany can stay there? And won't that result in vastly increasing the amount of misery, people smuggling and drowning in the Med as a result?
David Cameron had the right solution, many years ago. We should be taking refugees, but we should be taking them safely and legally from nations close to conflicts, not from a free-for-all for those prepared to pay people smugglers.
Of course, Labour went on to lose the following election decisively in terms of votes cast. And the usual warning about midterm polls meaning the cube root of f all applies.
Calling for Home Office to find 20 to 40% job cuts is background to failing on controlling our borders.
As an opposition party, having your policies implemented by whoever is in government gives you credibility!
Regardless of that, doesn't the UK take in a much smaller proportion of asylum seekers and refugees than other western European countries?
And the "Common Sense Group"? - omg. PLEASE make it stop. I can't bear it much longer.
The falling cost of transponders means we could simply introduce requirements to have them activated in UK territorial waters. Confiscate the boats that don't comply.
ID cards and contributory benefits.
Tracking financial assets of people smugglers. Etc etc.
Rwanda is cheaper, will appeal to the base and UKIP sympathisers and upset the right people.
If a Labour government was being needlessly partisan, and ineffective, you would call them out.
It's like the NHS - everyone and his dog knows it's a money pit that will bankrupt us and a contributory insurance model would deliver better outcomes.
But according to Marquee Mark's logic, nobody can make that criticism unless they know enough about trust management to make the case.
The people who know keep their mouths shut because they suspect Truss, Patel and Raab would love nothing better than firing 60% of the workforce and inviting in the big US and Aussie health providers.
All this polarisation is just self defeating long term.
Screaming Eagles mentions historic pull factors, but we are making history today. Look how Ukrainians view us, in high esteem, why is it so hard to imagine the migrators and asylum seekers holding us in the same special high esteem as the Ukrainians do? They don’t for one moment imagine UK is going to deport them to Rwanda, becuase they can’t get their head round UK would do that to them - that’s why this policy can’t work. Mrs Moore is their friend.
https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1537049789577183235?t=YZHfVGBwLLa9xiFJ0ZZOfQ&s=19
The boats are being piloted by the refugee/immigrants themselves.
The ones that aren’t intercepted - do they even try to bring them back or are they just abandoned?
The boats are bought for cash on the Continent - who are you going to go after?
Contributory benefits would be resisted by the progressive side of the debate until the death. I’ve been told, on occasion, that a UBI would be immoral because it would be a move to a “Xenophobic Benefit System”….
My favourite is -
- increase the fine for employing an undocumented workers to £100k. Per offence.
- Half goes to the witness who gives evidence
- If the witness is undocumented, they get indefinite leave to remain as well.
15 minutes after that law passes, no undocumented employment in the country.
Imagine a government was elected with 326 MPs in the UK that changed the law so that Jews no longer got the vote. Or that people born in Australia could not own property.
In the US, this wouldn't be possible because there is something above the decisions of Parliament/Congress - the Constitution - that cannot easily be overridden by 51% of those elected. (Who might - as in 2005 - be those chosen by just 35% of voters.)
The goal is to ensure that certain rights cannot be stripped from the 49% by the 51%.
If you wish to rid us of the foreign oversight of the EHCR, then - to my mind - we need to solve this issue.
Might be a damned foreigner. What do they know about law and order, hanging and flogging?
That's if we're lucky.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
One could, you know, spend some actual money and create proper off-shore processing facilities, like the Australians do. It would be expensive, but it would be effective at preventing those whose applications are refused from disappearing into the blackmarket.
One could spend what the Dutch spend on asylum claims and processing (which is about 50% more than the UK, despite the fact that the Netherlands is a lot smaller than the UK), and therefore process 98% of claims from Syrian asylum seekers in 10 weeks.
And one could implement measures to stop the demand pull of the black market in the UK.
But the idea that shipping a few hundred out of 20,000 people to Rwanda is a deterrent is absurd. You must know that, right? You can't be that stupid?
And then Patel puts up a few posters in Calais saying “you could be sent to Rwanda”. The madness of this government and its supporters would be laugh at loud funny, if not so sad at the same time 😟
No left wing politician is going to state openly that rising wages has any connection to less immigration.
Any such statement would be on the side of a bus faster than you can say Nigel Farage.
If a landlord is renting you a place despite you having no legal right to be in the UK, then he should be subject to a fine. (Likewise if you sublet a room.)
"...this dear dear land,
Dear for her reputation through the world,
Is now leased out, I die pronouncing it,
Like to a tenement or pelting farm:
England, bound in with the triumphant sea
Whose rocky shore beats back the envious siege
Of watery Neptune, is now bound in with shame,
With inky blots and rotten parchment bonds:
That England, that was wont to conquer others,
Hath made a shameful conquest of itself...
Survey across 10 European countries and UK shows respondents favouring an end to the conflict rather than holding Russia accountable
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/15/justice-for-ukraine-overshadowed-by-cost-of-living-concerns-study-shows
This is dangerous.
It's delusional to think there's a simple trade to be made.
Land for peace really means land for a pause in the war. it certainly won't mean an end to the conflict.
Still, now we get to see why Chamberlain was so popular after Munich.
The prick tease continues
New polling on the Rwanda policy shows 45% opposed and 35% in favour (the first I've seen with such a big gap). Strongly split along party lines, as has also been the case in other polls.
https://t.co/7Yc5K3JT5D
https://twitter.com/Samfr/status/1537086478500745224
Tribunals to resolve trade etc disputes are OK, so long as the government can pull the plug on it (with consequences if need be), but international courts? No thank you.
...But ECFR’s polling showed a clear divide between Europeans who want peace as soon as possible (35% across the 10 countries), and those who want justice – defined as restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity and holding Russia to account (22%).
A third “swing” group, who share the anti-Russian feelings of justice supporters but also the peace camp’s fears of escalation, accounted for about 20% of voters, the report found – with major distribution differences between countries...
Occasionally, HMRC would inform the restaurant that the NI number didn't match the name, or that it was invalid. And sometimes British kids (clearly British kids) would have no idea what their number was, or how to get it.
I believe things have improved slightly now, in that one can at least check that an NI number is technically valid.
Quite possibly also to have granted the injunction, unless it had deliberately been set up as a rubber stamp for government actions.
I wonder how many British-born might end up with a free trip to Africa for being disorganised and/or the children of disorganised parents?
Range: 5.5 km (ground) & 10 km (air), perfect munition for infantry as well as for light attack helicopters. EuroSpike is a joint venture by Diehl Defence 🇩🇪, @RheinmetallAG 🇩🇪 & @RAFAELdefense 🇮🇱. #Eurosatory2022
https://twitter.com/FeWoessner/status/1536841287378272257
*Not for use against Russian targets.
The way to ensure that we have a liberal society is to value Jews and others so that we won't elect a government that would do that, and if an horrendous government tried to do that, then we'd oust them and reverse it - not put our faith in documents like constitutions or international courts etc that are not accountable.
I've already seen a number of employers move to accepting out-of-date passports. Or just birth certificates.
And given that it is taking up to 10 weeks, and sometimes more to renew a passport...
ID card would be simpler all round.
Though Christianity certainly has influenced the way our ideas of democracy and human rights have developed, an argument explained in some detail in 2 books by Larry Siedentop -
"Democracy in Europe" and "Inventing the Individual". Both are very well worth reading.
Well, voila.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/15/lib-dems-say-they-trail-only-narrowly-in-tiverton-and-honiton-race
Surprise, surprise, they are behind. Expectations management, of course.
If a bad government arises then we the voting public can hold them to account and kick them out.
If bad people take control of the ECHR, then how do you kick them out?
The Council of Europe has done nothing to stop French mistreatment of migrants that makes their plight so bad they need to come here, or stop Victor Orban ending democratic norms in Hungary, or even stop Vladimir Putin's reign of terror where critics are disappeared, have accidents or are poisoned. All while under the jurisdiction of the ECHR and the Council of Europe that gave Russia back its voting rights after Russia threatened to withhold funding.
I have more faith in the British voting public to kick out undesirable governments than I do unelected bodies like the Council of Europe that thought Vladimir Putin's coin was worth more than the human rights the body was set up to protect.
Churchill was involved in setting up the Convention, which was to be binding upon domestic courts at the time, not overseas courts, they came later.
We didn't even get it right, what with the glaringly barbaric exception that the monarch is above the law
"The Bible says that "You and the foreigner shall be the same before the Lord: The same laws and regulations will apply both to you and to the foreigner residing among you." (Numbers 15:15f)
The legalist philosopher Guan Zhong (720–645 BC) declared that “the monarch and his subjects no matter how great and small they are complying with the law will be the great order”.[7]
The 431 BCE funeral oration of Pericles, recorded in Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War, includes a passage praising the equality among the free male citizens of the Athenian democracy:
If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if to social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way.[8]
The democratic way to determine whether a court's rules are acceptable or not is via Parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament sets the law, courts interpret the law, Parliament can change it if required, voters can change the Parliament.
If you're prepared to say you're willing to reject the court's rulings, then how else other than Parliamentary sovereignty is it meant to be settled?
The UK is prepared to tear up the Good Friday Agreement in order to leave the ECHR.
Hmmmm.
It's almost as if all of this is performative bollocks.
Crimes can and have been prosecuted after the fact repeatedly from WWII to Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia without the creation of a permanent court.
The USA, Russia, China etc all aren't part of the court anyway.
* Insert usual ECB joke here.
I think the harm for infantilising politics so that governments can easily claim "oh we can't deal with this they won't let us" is real.
The whole point of Brexit was to take back control so that the governments we elect set our laws, and if we're not happy with the laws, we can kick out those governments. That should apply here. If you're not happy with this government you should be able to kick it out and change its laws, there is no benefit to secondary courts that stood idly by letting Vladimir Putin vote on how they were run because they were blackmailed by his cash.
In the US, during the Trump era, the Supreme Court repeatedly stepped in and said "no, that would be unconstitutional".
Most political systems have checks and balances. That's not an accident.
You seem to propose getting rid of all checks and balances.
And, by the way, this is a particular issue in the UK, because FPTP can create very disproportionate results. In 2005, a Labour government got a majority not very different to Boris Johnson's on just 35% of the vote.
Ooooh its so close! We have a chance but only if everyone pulls together!
Soooooo close.
Lol
Winston Churchill was instrumental in setting up the ECHR after the Second World War . Should the UK stay in this or leave I’d expect a large majority to say stay .
The issue at times in the UK has been judges interpretation of that .
You’re never going to agree with every ruling but that’s par for the course .
For no 10 nothing is sacred , that is they are willing to dismantle any institution that doesn’t agree with them .
This is where authoritarianism starts , turn people against judges , try and dupe then into accepting less rights etc.
And a simple question for people . Will UK democracy be in a better place years down the line if they win the next general election ?
They are slowly chiseling away at the UKs foundations , bit by bit .
For the good of the country they must be removed and spend a period of time in opposition where they might hopefully come to their senses .
Yeah. Like they weren't planning to flood it with activists anyway.
So what we are saying is that we no longer believe in British law.
All Britons
Support 45% / Oppose 26%
Con voters
Support 25% / Oppose 53%
Lab voters
Support 71% / Oppose 7%
Tory voters hate is because it has Europe in it, I wonder if you asked the average voter if the ECHR is linked to the EU, what they would say?
So which ones do people here not like?