Re-negotiate the Dublin Agreement and provide safe passage

To be clearer: there is a clear process for assessing ALL asylum seekers, and part of that covers assessing those who are undocumented.

Cutting ourselves off into a supposedly beneficial Fortress Britain will not help ourselves in the end, of that I am certain: I feel we do lie in a very troubled world, and solutions can only be found by working together not separating ourselves off.

Certainly working against the people smugglers can only be done internationally: and that includes what people have said again, and again, but totally ignored by the Fortress Britain people, which is to set up processing centres abroad.

There are, to me, terrible dehumanising elements in the right here at work: talk of "illegals" (which, btw, comes straight from the USA and Trump - do people realise this?), which means, in effect, "criminals" the criminals hers are, after all, the smugglers
We trad the path of de-humanising peel at our peril: one day it could be us: I really do see at times the beginning of that terrible process so vividly described in the poem by the Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller:

you all probably know it

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

"First they came for the.......

Correction: Live in a very troubled world, not lie in it, tho there is plenty of lying going on...

Siope thanks for that interesting info. Sounds like there is a clear assessment route but it's a secret! Does it include lie detectors? I'm sure that it's a time consuming process and needs a large number of well trained staff.

It’s not a secret! The guidance - which is the process, written down - is publicly available. Some detail of the actions taken are redacted from the publicly available information because, if they weren’t, anyone who was trying to enter illegally would know how to play the system - think of it as the same kind of having the same kind of advantage as knowing some exam questions in advance.

Good Lord. I used to be able to write English. The last part of my post above should read: think of it as being akin to knowing some exam questions.

Sorry Siope by saying secret I meant the redacted sections you mentioned. That's keeping it pretty secret from an interested public although probably necessary from a security point of view.

I think a few migrants have shown they already know how to play the system siope by pretending they are under 18y and attending high school when in fact they are much older.

How on earth does leaving the EHCR make the asylum seeker problem better?

Siope makes a good point. The process of assessing whether an asylum seeker has a valid claim demands staffing and associated expenditure, Until the government is prepared to fund this, the backlog of asylum seekers will continue to grow. Meanwhile, housing and supporting the people must be costing as much as would assessing the validity of their claims.

Whitewavemark2

How on earth does leaving the EHCR make the asylum seeker problem better?

Was it not a Strasborg judge that stopped people going to Rwanda?

Whitewavemark2

How on earth does leaving the EHCR make the asylum seeker problem better?

This, by Lord Falconer (a former Lord Chancellor), in today's Observer, might go some way to explaining

....there are some basic freedoms that the law protects in all circumstances. They include everybody’s right not to be imprisoned without cause or to be subject to death or torture as a result of the acts of the state, and to have access to the courts to protect their rights.

No, says the government. Those basic rights do not apply to immigrants who enter the country illegally, even if it later emerges that they were entitled to asylum.

Those basic freedoms are protected by the incorporation of the ECHR into domestic law. Hence the implicit threat by Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, last week to leave the convention if it stood in the way of current immigration policy, which includes, in the Illegal Migration Act, imprisonment without adequate cause, and an unacceptable restriction of access to the courts. The convention is a red herring. If there were a British bill of rights, there is no doubt it would include those same basic freedoms.

The government is playing with fire. It is undermining one of our country’s undoubted strengths – a widespread and well-founded confidence that the law will be enforced without fear or favour, and protects everyone.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/12/lefty-lawyers-enemies-of-people-upholding-law-a-crime?CMP=share_btn_tw

It occurs to me that these 'Lawyers for Britain' are in much the same mould as the rogue immigration lawyers who are using their 'intelligence' to subvert the law and to profit from their subversion...

So the ECHR emerged after the last war to stop rogue governments from inflicting harm on its citizens.

Anyone of us might find ourselves turning to one if it’s articles for protection. Indeed some famous cases that were won doing just that include.

Phone hacking cases - Millie Dowler case.
Journalist right to protect source -
Right for gay people to serve in military
Hills borough
Innocent peoples DNA and retention by police
Legality of homosexuality
Stop and search - only with reasonable suspicion.
Police must seek warrant to phone tap.
You can no longer beat up your children.
Your employee cannot discriminate against you because of your religion - this case won by the woman who wanted to wear a cross at work.
Sex trafficking and slavery made illegal
Employers have no right to read our E-mails.
Freedom to know what is in the public interest.

All these freedoms and much more are covered by the act.

So the insanity is that some people are willing to sacrifice the rights covered in the Act which 67 million people in this country can rely on to protect them in order to fly 300 non-British nationals to Rwanda?!

What insane logic is that?

New rights would be made.
Hopefully wise and sensible ones.

Laws change all the time.

Personally, I think it would be a foolish and dangerous path to go down by leaving the ECHR.

It's a failsafe against untrustworthy governments. This one is, without doubt, untrustworthy, and there's nothing to say the next one won't be.

I don't know what the final Rwanda Court decision will be, but leaving the ECHR, simply for that, would be a bad move.

fancythat

New rights would be made.
Hopefully wise and sensible ones.

Laws change all the time.

So how different would they be to the rights we now enjoy?

What would you leave out?

I’ll list the articles to make it easy for you.

1. Obligation to respect human rights

2. Right to life

3. Prohibition of torture

4. Prohibition of slavery and forced labour.

5. Right to liberty and security.

6. Right to a fair trial.

7. No punishment without the law.

8. Right to respect for family and private life.

9. Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

10 freedom of expression.

11. Freedom of assembly and association.

12. Right to marry.

13 Right to effective remedy.

14. L prohibition of discrimination.

15. Derogation in times of emergency.

16. Restrictions on political activities of aliens.

17. Prohibition of abuse of rights.

Protocols

Protection of property
Right to education
Right to free elections
Freedom of movement within your country
Abolition of death penalty.
Right of appeal
Right of compensation if wrongfully convicted
General prohibition of discrimination.

They seem pretty wise, sensible and comprehensive to me and there isn’t one that I would wish got rid of, and thus reduce my rights.

How about you?

Casdon

Yes, I can’t wait until the next referendum when we will ultimately vote to go back in.

😂

fancy that, it was our own Judges who ruled against Rwanda. No there are no benefits to leaving the ECHR. It’s nonsense to suggest otherwise

The EU is looking at Tunisia as a place to send migrants. Tunisia is currently under caution by the Uk as a place to visit due to terrorist attacks.
It’s also forming a policy to charge 20000 euros per refused migrant so targeting Poland and Hungry. It will be interesting to know what the outcome eventually will be of its new migration pact.

fancythat

New rights would be made.
Hopefully wise and sensible ones.

Laws change all the time.

Just what is wrong with the old rights?

Were you thinking about excluding some people from them, like the government would like to exclude some asylum seekers?

What would you call them? Because they wouldn't be human rights any more, would they? They'd be Chosen UK People's rights.

Laws certainly change, but history very clearly shows us that people don't.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66438422

It all partly comes down to who you trust.

Who gets elected.
But the EU, many dont even get voted on?

Lots of people prefer to take their chances here rather than with the EU.

No intention of going all into this yet again.

fancythat

www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-66438422

That just reiterates what we’ve already said. It tells us nothing really.

fancythat

It all partly comes down to who you trust.

Who gets elected.
But the EU, many dont even get voted on?

Lots of people prefer to take their chances here rather than with the EU.

No intention of going all into this yet again.

You do know that the ECHR has zero to do with the EU?

It was set up by the British and with cooperation from other countries in Europe. Administered fro m Europe, but could just as well be administered fro the U.K. - it wouldn’t make any difference.

Leaving the ECHR wouldn’t remove the Human Rights Act - that would require separate legislation (which is theoretically possible, but recall the mess the government made of its Bill of Rights) - and the UK Supreme Court would still have to give due regard to international law in its decision making.

It would be disastrous just the same for a whole range of reasons, including
- removing the UK’s ability to influence key planks of international law;
- damaging co-operation on security and criminal issues;
- wrecking the relationship with the US;
- it runs counter to the UK’s strategic priorities as set out in the 2021 Integration Review and 2023 Integration Review Refresh (which I’m sure all those suggesting leaving the ECHR have read carefully);
- and it would totally destroy the Good Friday Agreement, to which the ECHR is integral.

Before anyone suggests it: it’s not possible for any single part of the UK to be in the ECHR, while the rest is not - Article 1 is clear on obligations

The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention

The GFA is here: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1034123/The_Belfast_Agreement_An_Agreement_Reached_at_the_Multi-Party_Talks_on_Northern_Ireland.pdf

and again, I’m sure all the anti-ECHR posters are familiar with it, and have proposals to replace it with something g equally effective and acceptable to both communities.