Leaving the ECHR won’t stop the boats, 300 organisations warn in rallying cry to defend human rights
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/human-rights-echr-treaty-kemi-jenrick-b2851708.html
by F0urLeafCl0ver
Leaving the ECHR won’t stop the boats, 300 organisations warn in rallying cry to defend human rights
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/human-rights-echr-treaty-kemi-jenrick-b2851708.html
by F0urLeafCl0ver
27 comments
They don’t want to stop the boats, it’s abundantly clear. The humiliation will continue.
I’ve been telling people this. There are other parts of international law that comes into play.
The ECHR is one of several pieces of law when it comes to asylum.
They want your rights gone, not those of migrants.
Farage has just told businesses that he plans to deregulate everything.
It all goes hand in hand. Reform don’t give a fuck about us.
The people who conned us into thinking that leaving the EU would solve all these issues are now trying to con us that leaving the ECHR would do the same.
Remember guys
~~It’s the EU that is causing your problems~~
It’s your human rights causing your problems
It wouldn’t stop any boats, no. The objective is making it actually possible to remove failed asylum seekers and criminals after they arrive without it taking years and failing anyway due to ridiculous Article 8 reasons.
There’s no need to even leave it. Government and Parliament need to clarify how the existing rules should be interpreted to curb abuse of it. It will happen eventually, make no mistake, either here or on the continent, as it is the only way this madness ends.
Yes technically you have to change the pull factors, but you can’t do that because of the ECHR. Do nothing at your own peril
First they took the EU away from us, they’re coming for the ECHR next. Its all part of a plan to isolate and dismantle our country, take away our rights/freedoms and steal away our wealth and our futures.
Why would they want to solve the ‘immigration problem’ that gets them so much influence and power?
Hint: they don’t.
Source: the Tories ‘anti immigration’ stance leading to the highest immigration levels, ever.
We have some great human rights lawyers in the UK. We should ask them about the need for the ECHR as we need expert guidance
Yeah, but leaving will make Keir feel like a [hard bastard](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg5dgr4mepo) and that’s important to him.
“Left wing pro refugee groups say don’t take measure to stop refugees.”
ECHR is a red herring. We eventually accept a higher percentage of asylum claims than lots of other European countries. Plenty of countries signed up to the same international treaties as us deport higher numbers.
We need to make it much less attractive for them to come here.
There hasn’t even been a single appeal case taken up by the ECHR in the last 5 years despite tens of thousands of asylum decisions. This tells us that our institutions are applying an extremely lenient acceptance policy and we should be looking inwards at solving that before considering completely withdrawing from the system.
No the royal navy with 100% turnback policy will stop them . Then maybe France will pull there finger out and stop them at their borders.
Yeah no sh*t, it’s the HRA that stops deportations
Leaving the EU increased immigration into Britain. When Britain was in the EU, Frontex and the EU Border Agency stopped a lot of this. Also leaving the EU so haphazardly meany Britain lost access to the Frontex databases. If Britain was still in the EU there would have been less immigration into Britain. So maybe rejoining the EU might be the smart thing to do.
There is no appetite to stop any boats or immigration. There is however a strong appetite to leave the ECHR.
Other countries have been able to stop immigration without leaving so makes you wonder why they want to leave the ECHR so bad. My guess is because they want to do something that is against the ECHR in the future.
ECHR is the target, immigration is the weapon they are using to hit the target.
It will because the legislation of the ECHR is treaty based and treaties form one of the 4 corners of the British constitution
Judges believe that ECHR rules are above the law of the British land and it should not take the Supreme Court to continually override foreign policy which is being favoured and is clashing with our common law system which is also part of the constitution
We have the human rights act which reform will overhaul into a bill of rights. It’s worth noting that the ECHR was created by Winston Churchill to enshrine human rights within the continent post world war 2 but it must be stressed. Winston Churchill was a British leader, the laws passed down in the ECHR extended human rights laws of the U.K. across the CONTINENT
It must be understood as the creator of the ECHR these laws are already within our legislation and they are enshrined by the common law aspect of the British constitution
What leaving the ECHR does is simply remove the jurisdiction of the rest of Europe and these 300 organisations from using the foreign courts of law like that of Strasbourg in the EU against the U.K. to keep violent illegals within the U.K.
Our judges whilst they are conflicted by internal and international issues conflicting within the same constitutional standard, they seem to be favouring the ECHR over internal legislation and national security
If the ECHR was removed from the British constitution the judges could only act within what remains in the constitution, the human rights act for example. They cannot then push national security to one side to favour the cries of these ultimately foreign institutions who don’t want these rapists to return to their own countries
ECHR may not have been made by the European Union but it is run by those unionists and it favours the blocs interests. Not justice and law. It is corrupted
That’s the most informative way I can explain it. We introduced these rules to Europe, as we created it it basically doubles human rights laws for us. But as it is being used against us by international groups who don’t want these thugs back. It’s not a benefit to us.. it’s a noose.. we already had those laws, Europe didn’t
To prevent the huge numbers arriving the government needs to build a large camp-holding centre on a remote island and put the illegal arrivals there.
Once people know they won’t get into the community quickly [or maybe never] the pull-factor will be greatly reduced.
The cost will be high and laws will need to be changed, but to get the numbers down as quickly as possible it is probably the best, most doable option.
If we could re-join the Dublin agreement it would, but that ship sailed long ago
Remember when hundreds of companies, experts and economists said Brexit was a terrible idea that would cost billions.
Then we voted for it.
Are we lemmings marching relentlessly towards a cliff. I’ve no other explanation of why we’d vote against our own interests at the say so of one man of seriously dubious reputation.
The step after that will though. With no ECHR to get in the way the Government can pass all sorts of laws that curtail human rights.
In their little world view, leaving ECHR = less brown people.
Let’s say that I had an endless stream of homeless people appearing at my front door and I constantly ended up with people inside trying to convince me to give them a room. Stuff keeps going missing out of the fridge, valuables moving, sometimes there’s a bloke just sat on my sofa with the missus. Let’s assume that I can’t just move house.
Within a month or so I absolutely would have had to come up with a plan. Maybe it’d be building a big fence and boarding up the windows. Maybe it’d be getting private security to stop them getting in. If none of that worked maybe I’d end up standing guard with a baseball bat. That last one wouldn’t be legal of course, but in our analogy, I am the Government so if I’ve exhausted all other options I’ll make it legal, after a few weeks of this I’ve probably had to quit my job just to protect myself.
This is the position that we are in. If we can solve it whilst staying within the ECHR then let’s solve it. The Government (as a whole, Labour, Tory whatever) is making this out to be far harder than it actually is – it’s just not a priority for them.
It won’t necessarily stop the boats immediately. It might make it easier to deport people, which might, in the long term, discourage people from turning up. The thing is, they largely already turn up having been lied to, and having unrealistic expectations, about what to expect, so it’s an uphill battle. Still, it isn’t entirely unreasonable to say that, indirectly, a harder line on who’s allowed to stay might help.
The thing is, there are ways to take a harder line on who’s allowed to stay without leaving the ECHR, and I would prefer to see that tried first. Leaving the convention is the nuclear option here and not something I want to see done under this government, in particular.
Of course it won’t, but it’s not the rights of immigrants that they’re most keen to remove.
Leftists: No solution to a giant problem
Right-wingers: A drastic solution to a giant problem
This is why Reform will win and the ECHR/HRA is in jeopardy. Instead of fixing the problem, people in this thread just point out why it’s bad to even try.
Labour has a huge majority, this is the time to fix the problem, instead we’ve had a record amount of small boats crossing. If they wont fix the problem, we’ll have to bring in someone who will, simple as.
The ECHR is stopping legitimate deportations.
That’s inaugurable. Now you might find the cost worth it.
But we could also leave and have the exact same rights but only for citizens.
Comments are closed.