New Tory Leader

[horsefly 4,310]

Just now, Fen Canary said:

Which can be acquired at any time. There’s nothing preventing the country leaving the ECHR if parliament wishes to do so 

You've changed your position, no surprise. Interesting you want to join Russia in withdrawing from the ECHR.

[horsefly 4,310]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I've already answered this. All rights we want to maintain (probably most of them) can be put into UK legislation, the same as we did with EU law when withdrawing for that. I'm happy to leave that to our elected representatives to debate. But anything that can be used by these waste of space human rights lawyers to force us to deal with bogus, mostly adult male, asylum seekers should go.

They are ALREADY a part of UK legislation, so the only rational reason from removal from the ECHR would be to rid ourselves of one or more of them. So again, ANSWER THE QUESTION.

[Fen Canary 866]

Just now, horsefly said:

You've changed your position, no surprise. Interesting you want to join Russia in withdrawing from the ECHR.

How have I changed my position? I said we can leave at any time we wish, and we can. You agree that is the case. The fact such an important decision would require a majority in parliament to do so largely goes without saying 

[horsefly 4,310]

3 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

All those rights long predate our signing up to the ECHR, and would still be there if we left it 

Historically and factually that's complete rubbish. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,588]

9 minutes ago, horsefly said:

They are ALREADY a part of UK legislation, so the only rational reason from removal from the ECHR would be to rid ourselves of one or more of them. So again, ANSWER THE QUESTION.

No, you're just pretending that I haven't. And if they're already in UK legislation then we don't lose the protection of them by leaving the ECHR and are free to remove the specific ones that are forcing us to keep failed asylum seekers in the UK.

What's your genius plan for dealing with the problem then? Carry on pretending it doesn't exist?

Edited April 5 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,588]

8 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Historically and factually that's complete rubbish. 

Really. Which of the rights listed did people not have in the UK before the ECHR?

[Fen Canary 866]

8 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Historically and factually that's complete rubbish. 

Are you suggesting those items would automatically disappear from UK law if we left the ECHR? We’d no longer have the right to a fair trial even though that’s been the case in England since the Magna Carta was signed? 

[Fen Canary 866]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Really. Which of the rights listed did people not have in the UK before the ECHR?

The death penalty was after we signed up in fairness, although that was abolished by parliament rather than anything to do with the ECHR 

[horsefly 4,310]

Just now, littleyellowbirdie said:

No, you're just pretending that I haven't. And if they're already in UK legislation then there's no need for us to be in the ECHR.

So you still won't identify a single one of the principles that you believe should not protect UK citizens. If you can't identify one then there is absolutely no need to withdraw from the ECHR and indeed every reason to remain within it as many UK citizens who have appealed to the court will attest. Na*zi Germany ignored/withdrew from its international legal obligations precisely in order to gain political control over its national judiciary.

You're a fraud.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,588]

2 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

The death penalty was after we signed up in fairness, although that was abolished by parliament rather than anything to do with the ECHR 

There was always going to be one or two.

Little tip though: Never be fair arguing with these guys. I used to make that mistake until I realised they're never fair or honest themselves and simply ignore or deny anything that doesn't suit their arguments, or if that fails just resort to mockery and laughing emojis.

Edited April 5 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,310]

5 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Are you suggesting those items would automatically disappear from UK law if we left the ECHR? We’d no longer have the right to a fair trial even though that’s been the case in England since the Magna Carta was signed? 

Idiotic and childish. Do you think Churchill was not aware that he could enshrine all those rights separately from the ECHR? So why do you think he thought it was so fundamentally important that the ECHR be ratified?

Edited April 5 by horsefly

[littleyellowbirdie 2,588]

6 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Are you suggesting those items would automatically disappear from UK law if we left the ECHR? We’d no longer have the right to a fair trial even though that’s been the case in England since the Magna Carta was signed? 

 

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Idiotic and childish. 

No they wouldn't as they're already written into UK law (see my response to LYB)

Fixed that for you.

[horsefly 4,310]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

 

Fixed that for you.

You truly are shockingly thick. Not the slightest understanding of why INTERNATIONAL laws exist outside of purely national laws.

Edited April 5 by horsefly

[A Load of Squit 5,215]

28 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I never said I blamed the refugees themselves, however if we’re already short of houses for British citizens why should we be giving what limited stock we have to house those who shouldn’t be here in the first place? 

They should be here as they have been given refugee status.

Also, not all refugees end up living in council/social housing.

[Barbe bleu 832]

3 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Are you suggesting those items would automatically disappear from UK law if we left the ECHR? We’d no longer have the right to a fair trial even though that’s been the case in England since the Magna Carta was signed? 

In the UK we do not recognise international law as having direct effect.

All of the protections of the convention were incorporated in domestic law by the human rights act 1998. So leaving the convention would not directly reduce protections outlined in the convention.

The only immediate impact would be that uk citizens would have no right to appeal to the ECHR and nor could uk actions be challenged within it.

I know of no Act of Parliament that incorporated convention membership into UK law so I think it would need Parliament to undo membership. Parliament would be who revokes the HRA though, the government couldn't themselves do that.

There may be consequences of leaving the ECHR but that's another question.

Edited April 5 by Barbe bleu

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

13 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

In the UK we do not recognise international law as having direct effect.

All of the protections of the convention were incorporated in domestic law by the human rights act 1998. So leaving the convention would not directly reduce protections outlined in the convention.

The only immediate impact would be that uk citizens would have no right to appeal to the ECHR and nor could uk actions be challenged within it.

I know of no Act of Parliament that incorporated convention membership into UK law so I think it would need Parliament to undo membership. Parliament would be who revokes the HRA though, the government couldn't themselves do that.

There may be consequences of leaving the ECHR but that's another question.

It's 'baked' into the Good Friday agreement for starters - Good luck renegotiating that!

https://davidallengreen.com/2023/07/why-the-united-kingdom-government-cannot-leave-the-echr-without-either-breaching-or-re-negotiating-the-good-friday-agreement/

Simple truth is that nobody rational thinks we should leave (including Sunak) or indeed could in this parliament (hence it's a hypothetical call by Sunak simply for dim party reasons) but it's a useful dog whistle for the unthinking 'right' at present. Woof woof.

[Barbe bleu 832]

2 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

It's 'baked' into the Good Friday agreement for starters - Good luck renegotiating that!

https://davidallengreen.com/2023/07/why-the-united-kingdom-government-cannot-leave-the-echr-without-either-breaching-or-re-negotiating-the-good-friday-agreement/

Simple truth is that nobody rational thinks we should leave (including Sunak) or indeed could in this parliament (hence it's a hypothetical call by Sunak simply for dim party reasons) but it's a useful dog whistle for the unthinking 'right' at present. Woof woof.

I wasn't commenting on the merits of withdrawal, just on the mechanism whereby that might take place.

In the UK the ECHR/ECtHR seems to be held in a high regard that isn't universal. In some/most other places the ECtHR appears to be something that they are party to but which is largely ignored.

We wouldn't need to leave the court/convention to change the way we deal with things, we just change the law to allow the inconvenient bits to be ignored, or just ignore applications or rulings entirely. We would hardly be the first or last to do so.

Edited April 5 by Barbe bleu

[Herman 9,820]

😄

 

[Fen Canary 866]

10 hours ago, horsefly said:

Idiotic and childish. Do you think Churchill was not aware that he could enshrine all those rights separately from the ECHR? So why do you think he thought it was so fundamentally important that the ECHR be ratified?

Why does every reply of yours have to contain a personal insult? You’re supposedly a retired lecturer, surely you’re able to articulate your point of view without resorting to childish name calling?

As to the point you’re trying to make, would you not agree that the issue around asylum seekers is a world away from that of Churchills day, therefore it makes sense for the law to change accordingly? If our being signatory to a Treaty prevents that from happening (with what many feel are adverse effects on society as a result) then leaving that treaty is a perfectly reasonable thing to do? If there’s some preparation to do before leaving in regards to how it affects other laws then thats the job of MPs to debate and make the adjustments accordingly.

Why do you seem to imply that because we signed up to something 70 years ago we should be bound by those rules forever, irrespective of how the world changes in the meantime?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,588]

 

Views change and circumstances change. When the convention of refugees was established there was nothing like the volume of people either being forced to flee are just fancying migrating for economic reasons. Now there are huge volumes of people moving and it has to be said, that some countries are purposely creating strife to drive migration to Europe and destabilise European societies. We're talking about treaties that came into force before I was born. I never consented to the introduction of these laws, nor did most of the people reading this.

Good government relies on the consent of the governed and these people are being forced on us and other developed nations without the consent of very large numbers of people. They are resented and unwelcome by many, who see resources being diverted to people who they see as abusing international law by crossing continents to choose destinations rather than simply seeking shelter in the nearest safe country. In every single case the UK processes, the UK will be paying for their legal representation through on appeals after first application and then the never-ending appeals while also paying the lawyers to pursue their expulsion after they've failed. And throughout all of this, the UK must house them at the expense of the homeless population in the UK.

Britain is a country that respects law to a very high degree. As EU members we gold-plated EU legislation while other EU countries took a far more flexible approach to it.  @Barbe bleu made a nod to the fact that some countries also bound to the ECHR and the UN convention on refugees, such as Italy, simply ignore their commitments under international law and forcibly expel many, sometimes without even processing an application.

In my view, law should be well-written, clearly interpretable, well thought-out, enforced even-handedly and most importantly enjoy the support of society. As it stands, we enforce laws that are largely resented but which the UK observes to the letter that other countries ignore while, in theory, being bound to the same extent as us.

It's a myth that withdrawing from treaties automatically leads to civil collapse and tyranny. Quite the opposite, withdrawing from treaties that a nation no longer consents to is the civilised thing to do on a diplomatic path to finding new solutions that people do consent to. Signing up to treaties and then simply ignoring them when inconvenient is far worse. How can anyone in Europe complain about Russia bombing schools and civilian buildings in breach of international law, or even Israel in Gaza if you like, while we, and the EU,  quietly accept that places like Italy engage in refoulement against these laws while everyone turns a blind eye because they want to pretend that the ECHR and the UN convention on refugees are fit for purpose, or France skirts the issue by rejecting applications and simply saying 'get out of the country' and forgetting that the people exist as they hover around in France waiting for a chance to get over the channel to the UK where it's simply impossible to remove them? That is far worse than being open and honest, declaring these laws as unfit for purpose and forcing a discussion on reform that will never happen until someone stands up and declares that what exists isn't working.

Edited April 6 by littleyellowbirdie

[Nuff Said 5,173]

When satire would seem less extreme:

Ukrainians returning home to get dental treatment https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-68683444

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,192]

This research briefing has considered the effects of the UK´s possible withdrawal from the ECHR. As well as the previously mentioned links with the GFA, there are also some implications regarding the Brexit deal, devolution and UN. I´m sure it would be possible to find a workaround for some of those, but I suspect it will take a lot of time, effort & money the country would be better off investing elsewhere. 

"The European Convention is referred to in the Belfast/ Good Friday Agreement, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU, and the devolution settlements with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Departure could thus have implications for the peace agreement in Northern Ireland; ongoing cooperation in criminal justice procedures with the EU; and relationships with the devolved nations.

Moreover, many of these obligations are also found in UN human rights treaties, or even in customary international law. This means the UK could still be bound by these obligations even if it were to withdraw from this treaty."

[A Load of Squit 5,215]

Congratulations should go to Suella Braverman, her 'Help to Buy' scheme has been a tremendous success in Kigali.

 

[Herman 9,820]

6 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

Congratulations should go to Suella Braverman, her 'Help to Buy' scheme has been a tremendous success in Kigali.

 

How did we get to this very low political point?? (I'm looking in your general direction kippers/brexiters.)

 

[Herman 9,820]

We’re All ‘Funding Hate’: UK Government Biggest Spender on GB News Advertising.

https://bylinetimes.com/2024/04/09/were-all-funding-hate-uk-government-biggest-spender-on-gb-news-advertising/

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

46 minutes ago, Herman said:

We’re All ‘Funding Hate’: UK Government Biggest Spender on GB News Advertising.

https://bylinetimes.com/2024/04/09/were-all-funding-hate-uk-government-biggest-spender-on-gb-news-advertising/

That's' outrageous. Perhaps they are advertising mental health services?

More seriously - somebody should have known better to stay away from any political channel.

Edited April 9 by Yellow Fever

[Daz Sparks 1,179]

7 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

Congratulations should go to Suella Braverman, her 'Help to Buy' scheme has been a tremendous success in Kigali.

 

It's laughable, until you realise it's being paid for by us. With this Government,  we are a failed state, Rwanda will be sending us aid soon enough. 

[Barbe bleu 832]

23 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

That's' outrageous. Perhaps they are advertising mental health services?

More seriously - somebody should have known better to stay away from any political channel.

If you read further you’ll see that biggest advertiser of GBNEWS is the back pages of the pinkun forum where readers are regularly reminded of the channel

[Herman 9,820]

28 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

That's' outrageous. Perhaps they are advertising mental health services?

More seriously - somebody should have known better to stay away from any political channel.

As has been mentioned before Ofcom are either asleep at the wheel or hobbled by this dreadful government. The Orbanification of Britain. At least some of our fellow posters are happy with this. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,588]

2 hours ago, Daz Sparks said:

It's laughable, until you realise it's being paid for by us. With this Government,  we are a failed state, Rwanda will be sending us aid soon enough. 

In reality, we’re still sending aid to China and India.