Re-negotiate the Dublin Agreement and provide safe passage

Sorry, link does not work- and as we all know, impossible to edit or delete on this site (why oh why- so annoying).

In short

To claim asylum in the UK a person must actually be in the UK - Its not possible to apply from outside the country & there is no asylum visa to enable people to travel to the UK legally to apply for asylum. So for citizens who don’t have visa-free travel to the UK, to actually claim asylum in the U K, they must enter either irregularly - such as by small boat, lorry, or by using false documents, or on a visa for some other purpose - such as tourism or study. But Sunak’s Government cares nothing for facts

To claim asylum, a claimer has to be in the UK - hence the boats, and more boats...

Very well explained here

twitter.com/PeterSt.../status/1691378627022086144...

Many people do not want or welcome EHCR involvement.

Many of them people who think that 'sovereignty' means the ability to completely isolate the UK from any European based institution, or people who don't even know the difference between the EU and the EHCR, or people who desperately want to treat asylum seekers ans non humans.

I would suggest that many more than 'many' are appalled at the idea of withdrawing.

Many people do not want or welcome EHCR involvement.

Now I think we are back full circle to your op.

A lot of people do understand this. No matter words by anyone that may try and hide things somewhat.

fancythat

Whitewavemark2

U.K. High Court - Court of Appeal - ruled the governments intention to transport as unlawful.

After late intervention by EctHR
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61806383

Yes because the asylum seeker appealed to the EHCR.

After that judgement the government appealed to the UKs court and lost.

Iam64

Our Judiciary is independent. Who do you think are ‘our judges’ fancy that?

Same as you Iam64

Whitewavemark2

U.K. High Court - Court of Appeal - ruled the governments intention to transport as unlawful.

After late intervention by EctHR
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61806383

The EU was set up to prevent war, although I never understood how a trading organisation could prevent war.

After two world wars in quick succession, both initiated by Germany, the European Coal and Steel Community was formed with the express intention of preventing Germany having free access to the two materials essential for the production of weaponry. The EU was founded on this desire to avoid future war in Europe.

The development of a trading bloc created economic ties between members which make the possibility of war more remote, for what country would want to lose its export market, or access to desirable imports?

There always was a move towards political integration. It has been partially achieved (probably as far as it will ever get) by the requirement for the member states to be governed by common democratic principles and a common recognition of the rights enshrined in the completely separate, but complementary) ECHR.

I think the fact that over 70 years later there has been no acts of military aggression between member states is indicative of the success of this particular trading organisation in avoiding war. However puzzled people might be by it...

NATO doesn’t prevent war, it only steps in when one of it’s members are threatened, which is why people feel very queasy about accepting Ukraine's application at the moment.
NATO May act as a deterrent if the aggressor knows the country in its sights is a member of NATO.

The EU is the entity that has done the job of preventing war amongst its membership. It has been highly successful. Not every EU member is a member of NATO.

Ukraine is not a member of the EU, however it would not have prevented Russia from invading.

Oooops, sorry, I got that wrong, Whitewave you’re right, ECHR was set up to protect the rights of citizens so that governments can never again commit crimes such as the Holocaust. I already knew Churchill set up it up. The EU was set up to prevent war, although I never understood how a trading organisation could prevent war. In my opinion NATO is the organisation which protects us from war.

Our Judiciary is independent. Who do you think are ‘our judges’ fancy that?

They were able to do so because of U.K. domestic law -

U.K. High Court - Court of Appeal - ruled the governments intention to transport as unlawful.

Whitewavemark2

fancythat

Iam64

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

Oops. Sorry WW. It was Iam64 who said this, and not you.

Actually iam64 is right. Because the HR law is incorporated into U.K. law.

Who do you call "our own judges"?

And finally😄 for those who feel uncomfortable that the court is in Strasbourg and seemingly we are being told by “Europe”

Think about it.

Where would you have put the court post WW 2 - it made absolute sense to place in the heart of Europe where so much atrocity had taken place. Placing it in the U.K. would not have made sense.

And as maizie says in order to protect people/immigrants/refugees etc, it was fully intended to cover every human contained within a countries borders.

Actually i do think people are muddling the two concepts, which are entirely different entities.

The EU was set up after World War Two, initially by France and Germany using funding from Bretton Woods. Its original name was something like the coal market or some such, but was indeed set up in order to prevent further war over resources and such like. It was so successful that other countries joined very quickly to form a core of 6. It gradually morphed into the EU which is a commercial union, providing the biggest market in the world for its members and the most comprehensive level playing field for businesses in the world. So a businessman sitting in say Essex ☺️can be confident that he is operating under the exact same rules as say a businessman in Greece or Poland.

The ECHR was set up /initiated by Churchill alongside other European leaders with the intention that what had happened to German citizens would never, ever happen again. Countries were invited to join and the court was set up by the British in Strasbourg. Every country signed up to the articles and later protocols.

We, in the U.K. never had a HR law contained within our domestic law, so, in 1998 the Labour government decided that, that state of affairs could not continue, so deciding we could do no better, we incorporated the ECHR into U.K. law.

It was set up to try to prevent European countries going to war with one another.

The ECHR was set up to prevent violations of human rights in the member states of the Council of Europe such as occurred during WW2. It was nothing to do with preventing war between European States. Prevention of war was the rationale for the establishment of the EEC.

It’s clear that the ECHR was never meant to support people from every corner of the earth using it to support their arguments.

Where is that made clear?

In my reading it is for the protection of people in the member states. There is no exclusion of nationals from other countries.

maddyone

Urmstongran

Or maybe THIS instead of renegotiating the Dublin Agreement?

“Leaving the EU was supposed to give us back control of our borders. But we won’t truly get back control until we leave the ECHR as well.

We should ask ourselves what purpose is served by having a foreign court which supervises our rights and liberties. Canada, Australia and New Zealand seem perfectly happy that they can protect the rights of their citizens without needing to subject themselves to some external regional court. When the foreign court to which we have subjected ourselves is as deeply flawed as Strasbourg, the question should not be “why should we leave” but “why on Earth are we still a member?”

^Martin Howe KC is chairman of Lawyers for Britain^

I’m not interested in what they campaigned for in 2016, I’m interested in what they say say now. It’s clear that the ECHR was never meant to support people from every corner of the earth using it to support their arguments. It was set up to try to prevent European countries going to war with one another. That worked out well didn’t it? Ask Zelensky about that, or take a trip to Mostar in Bosnia and have a look at the bridge peppered with gun shot and then have a think about how successful the ECHR has been in its primary objective.

No that is wrong.

The Common Market was set up to try to prevent countries going to war with one another, and in my view it succeeded spectacularly.

The ECHR was set up by Churchill after the war to prevent rogue governments from attacking people within their own borders and preventing their human rights from being compromised. That, in my view has been highly successful, Europe is as a whole, the most civilised place on earth, with every single person within its borders supported by this law.

fancythat

Iam64

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

Oops. Sorry WW. It was Iam64 who said this, and not you.

Actually iam64 is right. Because the HR law is incorporated into U.K. law.

The ECHR was set up to protect human rights and political freedoms of all citizens in the 46 states of the Council of europe. Russia left after its removal from the Council of Europe and Belarus is not a member.

Urmstongran

Or maybe THIS instead of renegotiating the Dublin Agreement?

“Leaving the EU was supposed to give us back control of our borders. But we won’t truly get back control until we leave the ECHR as well.

We should ask ourselves what purpose is served by having a foreign court which supervises our rights and liberties. Canada, Australia and New Zealand seem perfectly happy that they can protect the rights of their citizens without needing to subject themselves to some external regional court. When the foreign court to which we have subjected ourselves is as deeply flawed as Strasbourg, the question should not be “why should we leave” but “why on Earth are we still a member?”

^Martin Howe KC is chairman of Lawyers for Britain^

I’m not interested in what they campaigned for in 2016, I’m interested in what they say say now. It’s clear that the ECHR was never meant to support people from every corner of the earth using it to support their arguments. It was set up to try to prevent European countries going to war with one another. That worked out well didn’t it? Ask Zelensky about that, or take a trip to Mostar in Bosnia and have a look at the bridge peppered with gun shot and then have a think about how successful the ECHR has been in its primary objective.

Iam64

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

Oops. Sorry WW. It was Iam64 who said this, and not you.

GrannyGravy13

I was in no way advocating for the U.K. to leave the ECHR.

As others have posted it’s possible for a country to have its own human rights laws, as many do.

When the government makes it clear that it wishes to deprive a section of humanity of their human rights it gives one no confidence that they will observe their own legislation.

Particularly as they have for some time expressed a desire to replace it with a new version of our domestic human rights legislation.

I can only thank heaven that this government has, at the most, just over a year to run and all the signs are that it will be expelled by the electorate at the next General Election. This will, in all likelihood, not be long enough to pass new HR legislation, particularly as, I am sure, the House of Lords will hold it up until the government's term of office expires.

What 'other countries' do is irrelevant.

fancythat

Whitewavemark2

fancythat

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

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

But it does.

The first two paragraphs in particular.

Another article in the DM today[wont bother to link] does as well.

I could be wrong, but sometimes I feel you try and hide the truth.

First two paragraphs

“Senior Conservatives - including a cabinet minister - say their party is likely to campaign to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) at the next election, if Rwanda flights continue to be blocked.
There is frustration at the role of a European court in stopping flights for asylum seekers taking off last year.”

What is it telling us that we didn’t already know?