Why would any of those countries be in the European Convention on Human Rights?
Well said.The point is that they operate perfectly well as a country without a further tier of court from a central bloc.
That doesn’t answer my question though?You’d fall back on English common law which has a much richer tradition of safeguarded civil liberties centuries before the ECHR was dreamt up.
That’s because I’m not a legal expert. I don’t know what law(s) or previous judgements would be used to argue the case.That doesn’t answer my question though?
Why do you do this stupid routine continually.Why do this stupid routine continually?
Repealing the HRA brings us back to the state of Britain in 1997. The USA, Canada, Australia, NZ aren’t signed up to the ECHR.
It’s not a problem that you disagree on policy. You’re a bad faith actor.
If you think leaving the ECHR and repealing the HRA doesn’t solve the small boat crisis, then outline why you think that.
Alternatively, if the ECHR and HRA has a legal framework to prevent small boat crossings and other issues around illegal migration, then we’re all ears. As far as I can see, it’s not possible. Hence, this issue has proliferated and accelerated since these were implemented into UK law. It’s demonstrably not an issue of party politics either.
I suggest you look up the meaning of the word supersede you’ve put the cart before the horse again.That’s because I’m not a legal expert. I don’t know what law(s) or previous judgements would be used to argue the case.
You’ve missed the point going down this rabbit hole. The ruling is unpopular and gives Reform ammunition to support their policy of scrapping the ECHR.
The judgement was ‘correct’ in the sense that the law draws upon the ECHR which supersedes UK law. The law is the law (well, the HRA which enshrines the ECHR) but it’s right to question if the existing legal framework is fit for purpose.
So you don’t know if the ECHR is actually why this ruling was handed down because you’re “not a legal expert” but you’re going to blame the ECHR for it anyway?That’s because I’m not a legal expert. I don’t know what law(s) or previous judgements would be used to argue the case.
You’ve missed the point going down this rabbit hole. The ruling is unpopular and gives Reform ammunition to support their policy of scrapping the ECHR.
From what I’ve read the Rough Sleeping Initiative was the actual basis of the appeal.So you don’t know if the ECHR is actually why this ruling was handed down because you’re “not a legal expert” but you’re going to blame the ECHR for it anyway?
Stupid comments from right wing MP’s this afternoon.
“the ECHR means that asylum seekers have more rights than everyone else “ er… no. It’s means they have the same rights as everyone else.
"Keir Starmer has shown that he puts the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of the British people who just want to feel safe in their towns and communities." err… so how is kicking them out into the street to rough sleep going to improve that? How will they get food? How will they get money? How will the police locate them when the inevitable rise in street crime directly from throwing them out on the streets leads to people with no fixed abode being wanted by the police?
It’s horrible but this feels really “better the devil you know”. No one wants them in hotels (me included) but the alternative is to either kick them onto the street en masse which would be absolute chaos and see violent crime increasing in both directions, or disperse them into HMOs everywhere at which point the perceived ‘risk to children’ grows exponentially.
Could have just shot all the asylum seekers out of a cannon aimed at the sun if it wasn’t for the pesky ECHR.
This is a hot mess.Why do you do this stupid routine continually.
Put the horse before the cart. They want us leave the ECHR to repeal the HRA. That doesn’t take us back to the state of Britain in 1997, it takes us back to the state of Britain in 1951. In 1997 we had the safety net of the ECHR without the the HRA.
You keep moronically naming countries that aren’t ECHR members that aren’t actually in Europe. Why?
The reason why scrapping the HRA and leaving the ECHR won’t stop the boats is because we’re signed up to other treaties that offer asylum seekers the same rights as the HRA and ECHR. The UDHR is the basis of the ECHR and thereafter the HRA, The non European countries you keep naming as a gotcha are signed up to the UDHR. To leave the UDHR we’ll have to leave the UN. Which we’ll never do.
Asylum seekers rights are protected by a series of safety nets, it doesn’t end with the ECHR or the HRA, that’s just where they’re policed on a national basis and then on a European basis, the next default is the ICJ. The only people’s rights who can be ultimately affected by leaving the ECHR to scrap the HRA is yours. It’s a Trojan horse. Just because they think you’re stupid doesn’t mean that you have to indulge them.
I suggest you look up the meaning of the word supersede you’ve put the cart before the horse again.
No, because they cited it in their judgement. Your question was asking me what would’ve been cited if we weren’t in the ECHR…So you don’t know if the ECHR is actually why this ruling was handed down because you’re “not a legal expert” but you’re going to blame the ECHR for it anyway?
My question was whether this appeal and ruling was possible without the ECHR - go back and read it. You freely admit you have no idea but are happy to blame it anyway, this is unbelievably tedious.Your question was asking me what would’ve been cited if we weren’t in the ECHR…
Yes, it could’ve been appealed but it’s not obvious what would’ve been cited in its place or if the government would have won.My question was whether this appeal and ruling was possible without the ECHR - go back and read it. You freely admit you have no idea but are happy to blame it anyway, this is unbelievably tedious.
There's next to no chance of it happening in reality.
The UK is still unlikely to leave it.italy is a country that’s ignored the ruling and sent people back anyway to
This is a hot mess.
The Human Rights Act enshrines the ECHR and the judgements of the ECJ above UK law. Turkey, by comparison, hasn’t enshrined this in Turkish law. Turkey is actually an authoritarian regime that abuses human rights, including ethnic minorities as well as illegally occupying part of another sovereign nation. Therefore, being a part of the ECHR in of itself does not guarantee human rights.
human rights before the ECHR was established because as you and others point out, British legal experts shaped its contents. Leaning heavily on English common law traditions and foundational documents such as the Magna Carta and Bill of Rights (1689).
The same UDHR Australia is a signatory of? They were able to stop the boats which doesn’t support your claims.
Again, the UDHR traces its roots back to Code Napoleon and US Declaration of Independence which all date back to English common law.
To summarise, our legal system and traditions on civil liberties is robust enough to scrap the HRA and leave the ECHR.
No, because they cited it in their judgement. Your question was asking me what would’ve been cited if we weren’t in the ECHR…
The basis of the home office’s legal argument was the ECHR. I’m sure there would’ve been legal precedents to draw upon in existing UK law.
Firstly Australia didn’t stop the all the boats. Secondly its outcome on the numbers of asylum seekers that they took was negligible especially when compared to the astronomical cost of implementing it. They’ve actually pretty much given up on offshore processing, the numbers are down to dozens. Thirdly Australias illegal immigration issues are not entirely comparable to the UK’s in that the majority of Australias are economic, they don’t have the numbers escaping places like Syria or Afghanistan like we do so the bulk of theirs don’t fall under the same rules as ours even under UDHR.
What rights would be removed if we scrapped the HRA? The Magna Carta and Bill of Rights (1689) are still active on the statute books.Did we ever find out if the plan was to not extend the bill of rights to everyone in the country or to remove rights we currently have?
Or, you know, what we’d replace the trade loss in Europe with etc.
Although to be fair you've got to cross about 400 miles of sea to get to Australia unlike the 40miles between France and England.This is evidence the Australian government submitted to our own parliament contradicts you.
50,000 illegal migrants arrived by boats between 2008-2013, 1,200 deaths at sea. Operation Sovereign Borders has all but eliminated illegal migration via sea and their third country processing scaled back in line with this.
People smugglers lose their customs if they cannot guarantee that people cannot reach their desired destination.
Actually, if these people don’t make it to sovereign UK territories, there is no obligation under various treaties and conventions.
Although to be fair you've got to cross about 400 miles of sea to get to Australia unlike the 40miles between France and England.
Would probably change a few minds if the English Channel stretched as far as Germany.
But what about the complexities of it? Where do you send a boat 'back' to? Every other country could claim it didn't originate there so why should they take it? Those on the boat could say they originated in Britain - how do you disprove that?Did their policies work? Yes.
Did they meet international obligations? Yes.
Did Australia become an international pariah? No.
Does Australia have a trade agreement with the EU? Yes.
People smuggling is an industry and they provide a service to their clients - they literally advertise on TikTok and other social platforms. Their business model relies on the near service guarantee that these people will get entry to the EU and then the UK and not be sent back.
Take that guarantee away and the demand for their services dissipates. Hence, the costs of Australia’s ‘Operation Sovereign Borders’ was reducing over years.
If the UK implemented these policies and was successful, it’s the basis of future cooperation with the EU. In principle, I wouldn’t be against the Royal Navy supporting EU member states in providing operational support sending boats back to North Africa, Turkey and so on in the Mediterranean.
Illegal migration is an issue that is tearing Europe apart and why the traditional centre right and centre left parties are in retreat.
Firstly Australia didn’t stop the all the boats. Secondly its outcome on the numbers of asylum seekers that they took was negligible especially when compared to the astronomical cost of implementing it. They’ve actually pretty much given up on offshore processing, the numbers are down to dozens. Thirdly Australias illegal immigration issues are not entirely comparable to the UK’s in that the majority of Australias are economic, they don’t have the numbers escaping places like Syria or Afghanistan like we do so the bulk of theirs don’t fall under the same rules as ours even under UDHR.
What rights would be removed if we scrapped the HRA? The Magna Carta and Bill of Rights (1689) are still active on the statute books.
The ECHR foundations is English common law. The UK, unlike most European countries, has a good track record on
Australia, Canada and NZ are proof of this.
Hysterical response.
Technically, the EU could rip up the entire TCA. More realistically, it would open up more negotiations with the EU and the UK would need to demonstrate how its commitments to HR is compatible with the EU. This won’t be problem since the EU has trade agreements with countries with genuine human rights abuses.
Did their policies work? Yes.
Did they meet international obligations? Yes.
Did Australia become an international pariah? No.
Does Australia have a trade agreement with the EU? Yes.
The written arguments on behalf of the Home Secretary in this appeal included the contention that "the relevant public interests in play are not equal" and that one aspect of this is that the Home Secretary's statutory duty is a manifestation of the UK's obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This point was not pursued in oral argument.
Any argument in this particular context about a hierarchy of rights is in our view unattractive.
Amazing
Manchester’s chief flag-raiser has put his people smuggling days behind him
Flags protesting unchecked immigration have gone up across the city, led by a man caught smuggling migrants into the country in the back of a vanmanchestermill.co.uk
ProbablySoo... you're saying the people most for smuggling people are pushing "far-right" agendas?
Probably
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?