SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
How the fuck is he now getting interviewed on TV? I seriously don’t understand what is going on anymore
Immigration and Asylum (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter mmttww
- Start date
How the fuck is he now getting interviewed on TV? I seriously don’t understand what is going on anymore
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Don’t be daft
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
So your fix-all is to get rid of the ECHR when all the main parts of it are in English law anyway? So getting rid of the ECHR won't make the blindest bit of difference as the laws will still be there. That's my point.
It's the fact that it's got 'European' in the title that makes it this massive stumbling block for many.
Farmer Jim
Well-Known Member
CovValleyBoy
Well-Known Member
He'll be on I'm a Celebrity in nxt few weeks & Strictly nxt year
Sick Boy
Super Moderator
Haha I actually thought the same about I’m a Celebrity.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
It will because what the Human Rights Act did is a) enshrine the ECHR into UK law and b) accepts the rulings of the ECtHR*.
The reason the UK Government experienced legal fare with the Rwanda scheme was because of this legal framework. Dismantling this framework and passing primary legislation to reassert parliamentary sovereignty is goal here.
Dominic Cummings is on record saying the Royal Navy would find it ‘operationally easy’ to turn boats around in the English Channel but doing so would contravene the ECHR. They could be wrong but you’d expect the Royal Navy to be subject matter experts on the logistics of that operation.
Anyway, we fundamentally disagree on whether or not this would work so there’s not much point in going round in circles. Suppose leaving the ECHR and implementing an Australian style ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’, would that be desirable outcome?
On the flip side, if this government found a way to keep the ECHR, stop the boats and deport foreign criminals… That would be a win-win. I’ve just lost confidence in the existing framework to deliver these goals and feel that successive governments would’ve found a way by now if it were possible (including EU countries).
* I’ve said ECJ in previous posts, please note this should actually read ECtHR and I’ve got my EU courts mixed up.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
International law would still apply though and due to the proximity to France there are no international waters to 'push' these boats back into. So France could just as easily record us forcing boats into their waters in contravention of international law, or just turn them straight back round again into our own waters.
These are not solutions and just seem a very inefficient way to literally go round in circles.
Sure, I agree that things can't go on as they are but leaving the ECHR is going to be about as effective as leaving the EU was. The reality ends up being a bitch.
There is or seems to be a scheme to make them safe secure by giving them freedom's that frankly they shouldn't be afforded 1 you can't try before you buy.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
Australia would often tow boats back to Indonesian waters and this obviously caused diplomatic tensions. They’d also do things like provide life boats with a set route back to Indonesia. What you say would happen with the French did not occur with Australian and Indonesian authorities.
We’re paying the French to stop the boats leaving their shores and they’re predictably not delivering. So if they can’t (or won’t) stop the boats.
You’re very good at agreeing there’s a problem saying ‘this won’t work’ to whatever policy is conjured up. Since you’re so well read up on this, what policies have you read that would work alongside the existing frameworks?
The Australian model is tried and tested with outstanding results. Their small boats issue is no longer an issue because there are no more ‘irregular arrivals’ via small boat. Literally zero for a decade.
If there’s a better alternative with real-world application with a successful track record, please do share.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
You really are an idiot, almost as embarrassing as when you made a public announcement about leaving X. That was one of them most embarrassing things on here and nobody gave a flying fuck
Last edited:
It really isn't, I survive every day without consequence as of yet, anyone who uses it for corporate reasons deserves what they get.
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
I would argue your sycophantic slavering over Donald Trump and Nigel Farage is a lot more embarassing.
mmttww
Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Need someone to teach him a lesson if you ask me. Given my last profession, I think I should be the one to do it.
Mucca Mad Boys
Well-Known Member
I’ll lend you a textbook.
Couldn't you lend it to torch to shove down the back of his trousers?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Key Stage 1 History please, I need to start from the basics.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
You announced to a football forum the reasons for leaving X you saddo, how embarrassing is that hahahaha. Also had a big fucking hissy fit about a slogan against illegal immigration. My family emigrated over here the right way as have many people that I know, nothing wrong with that at all and they do a lot of good for this country and are really good people! Why are you for illegal boat crossings and why do you name anybody that’s against them as a massive racist? I’m Genuinely curious
torchomatic
Well-Known Member
You're an obsessed weirdo.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Can’t answer the question, I’m so shocked. You are an idiot
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Fucking hell would take a lot to teach him anything, we only have decades not centuries! He thinks it’s offensive to not want people risking their lives in boats or people we know nothing about coming here. Has no answers when someone who’s family emigrated here and came the legal way asks him though, it’s comical.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone here's on team people trafficker, my friend
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Why does he call people who are against it racist then?
Ccfcisparks
Well-Known Member
Well you have people who are team anti safe spaces for women so it wouldn't surprise me
Ccfcisparks
Well-Known Member
Guns too?
Marty
Well-Known Member
Racist!
To pop the boats yes.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Ah yes MR duffer, very odd
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I’m sure that’s exactly what he said.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Come on stop playing stupid, he had a shit fit over that sticker with the slogan on it, what’s wrong with saying ‘stop the boats’ I’m genuinely intrigued to here why people don’t like it. Nobody wants people risking their lives and surely nobody wants people you know nothing about that could have done all kinds of things? @torchomatic just calls people every name under the sun because he’s a thick idiot that then can’t back up his point!
Legal immigration is great for this country but I don’t get why being against illegal makes you a ‘massive racist’
Last edited:
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
If that is what’s been said, it’s probably because the language used seems to treat the people on the boats as bigger criminals than the traffickers.
Not really I'm of a similar view.