This seems more accurate than the Matt Goodwin “kill the ECHR” diatribe. I live in the EU and can confirm that other countries that are bound by the ECHR do not do the daft things that the British judiciary, police and civil service do wrt immigration. It’s a problem generated from within Britain’s elite systems.
With each passing day I begin to resent Reform more and more. It's that mixture of ignorance, soundbites, cheap shots and treating anyone on the Right who expresses doubts or constructive criticism as apostates to be berated that pisses me off the most.
Take yesterday's idiotic tweet by Zia Yusuf: That the Tories are so bad not only did they create a minister for net zero (true) but that they have a shadow minister for net zero...followed by a trio of tears of laughter emojis. If there is a ministry then the opposition need a shadow minister, even if they want that ministry gone. A shadow minister gets access to information about that department, is there to scrutinise government policy and rebut what it doesn't like. Yusuf just doesn't get it, like he didn't understand how PMQs or the House of Lords work. He revels in ignorance, becoming a new Richard Burgon, and what's depressing is that Reform loyalists lap his utterances up.
Talk about destroying the existing structure sounds more impressive but there's rarely talk about what replaces it. Reform talk about a British Bill of Rights (an idea they stole off Dominic Raab) but I doubt any of them have heard about the 1689 Bill of Rights. Where's the intellectual heft of Reform? Oh, that's right, they purged them.
I was thinking along lines similar to Pete's: We don't need radical overhauling or destruction. We need to fix things. A repair not a revolution. It's within grasp but only if the people in charge are willing to do it.
Dominic Grieve, in yesterday's Independent, throws up similar objections in a piece headed:
"Courts would block Farage’s ‘mass deportation’ plan using common law, says former attorney general
Exclusive: Dominic Grieve has issued a scathing critique of Reform’s immigration plans ahead of a speech by the party’s leader."
The upshot of his piece is that the EU would "collapse the post-Brexit deal" if the UK dared to leave the ECHR. And activist UK judges would find ways to use the law to continue to block deportations.
This is typical Grieve. I think back to his convoluted, legalistic objections to Brexit, not to mention his underhand attempts to thwart it.
As for public/popular messaging on ECHR by Reform and others, I think one can assume that "leave ECHR" is shorthand for also removing the long tentacles of this foreign court in our law, including the Human Rights Act. The broad-brush term "leave the ECHR" can be interpreted in many ways to suit whatever circumstances prevail at the time.
One important point I think should be stressed. It misrepresents Braverman merely to say she wants to "revert" to common law.
What she advocates in her paper, repeatedly and clearly, is a return to the common law and statute that was the prevailing way of doing things before we began outsourcing our governance to foreign courts. This is a significant difference.
If you read the various documents regarding Human Rights, you may notice a general problem:
They should be regarded as hierarchical. But the Universal Declaration recognises no such hierarchy.
The European Convention does recognise a limited hierarchy. Although this seems to have been ignored by the judges. They have de facto upheld the anti-blasphemy against Islam law of the Austrian courts.
And of course, Islam gets in on the production of Human Rights, in practice heavily distorted by the need to be compatible with Sharia.
Have a read of the book "Islam Versus Human Rights". The trwo really are incompatble.
I think a lot could be achieved in government by ditching some of the most 'beancountery' nonsense. Like league tables for performance. I'm certainly not the first critic of these for the police forces, as many have already noticed and bemoaned the fact that if police are to slide up the tables, they need to produce more results, more arrests, more crime 'clear-ups'.
Problem with that is it makes it easy to hector motorists to bump up offences. Or to prosecute mean tweets. Easy gains for their table rankings. If they just ditched the tables and divvied up the police funding in some kind of reasonable way, they could insist police go after 'proper' crimes (eg violent crime, theft and burglary, fraud, etc) which I imagine can sometimes be complex and time-consuming - so not great if you need the points to jump above the neighbouring force!
The bean-counters seem to be everywhere. So unpicking their influence can be applied across multiple policy areas.
Of course, still haul the various commanders and other bosses in for a roasting in the various committees, etc.
A surprising letter from Malcolm RIfkind in The Times today...
...
Sir, I have changed my mind. For years I have opposed the UK withdrawing from, or suspending, the European Convention on Human Rights, despite judges on the European court having interpreted it in a way that was not remotely contemplated when the convention was drafted after the Second World War (news; letters, Aug 27 & 28).
It is now clear to me that being obliged to observe these judgments has been a significant reason why the Labour government is being no more successful than its Conservative predecessor in reducing the lengthy delays in deciding asylum appeals and is also finding it close to impossible to deport illegal migrants who have committed serious crimes.
It is encouraging that several European governments agree that the terms of the convention need to be modernised, but any change will take years and require unanimity that might be unachievable. The public are, rightly, demanding that the government does whatever is needed to stop arrivals and to deport illegal migrants who do not deserve asylum status. I salute David Blunkett and Jack Straw, two former Labour home secretaries, who now want Britain to withdraw from, or suspend, the convention, so far as it applies to illegal migrants. I join them and hope that the prime minister and the cabinet will accept that this is the only way of averting what is becoming a national crisis.
Is there something in the British psyche that commands us to adhere rigidly to formal commitments even when it's patently against our interests? Coupled with a view that to diverge from said commitments we must go through the rigmarole of divorce and/or renegotiation?
It's interesting that while the EU (unlike the ECHR) does appear to have some means of enforcing its rules, even certain EU member states have chosen to just accept the consequences of violating EU law, simply taking on the chin sanctions and other measures.
Could anyone imagine a British government doing something similar?
I asked Google AI what the consequences might be of the UK disapplying the principle of non-refoulement in its domestic law. It appeared to be of the view that the very act of ignoring the ECHR as a signatory state could eventually collapse the GFA & destabilise NI politics: 'potentially destabilizing the peace process and straining relations with Ireland and the EU.'
It also mentions: 'The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) contains a clause that allows the EU to terminate parts of the agreement related to law enforcement and judicial cooperation if the UK fails to adhere to the ECHR. This would have serious consequences for a wide range of issues, including extradition and security cooperation.'
And: 'A "Devolution Crisis": By disapplying the principle of non-refoulement and ignoring ECHR rulings, the UK government would be undermining the very legal foundation of the devolution settlements. This would create a situation where the UK Parliament is acting against a principle that is legally binding on the devolved legislatures. This would be a profound constitutional conflict.'
It has never ceased to amaze me the way that the UK slavishly follows every dot of EU law and regulations, while other members simply ignore what they don’t like. 🤷♂️
Peter still believes in the Tory Party, barely a year after they were annihilated by the electorate.
Lying consistently to the electorate, planning total control of the internet in line with MSM/OFCOM, whilst organising and year by year increasing mass migration in their 14 years in government.
He’s either an utter idiot or in denial - either way he needs his head violently shaken (metaphorically).
"I find it depressing to see such hostility from some Conservatives towards Reform UK on illegal migration, especially given our own appalling record in government.
"Now should be the time to work collaboratively with Reform UK, prioritising the national interest and the urgent need to stop Channel crossings.
"It is also frustrating to hear some Conservatives talk tough now when they voted against the very measures they claim to support.
"For example, on 16th and 17th January 2024, during the passage of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, some of my colleagues and I tabled two key amendments:
"Amendment 10 disapplied the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR, to stop spurious legal claims blocking deportations. Only 60 Conservatives voted for it, 265 voted against.
"Amendment 23 made ‘Rule 39’ injunctions (so-called pyjama injunctions) non-binding, ensuring flights to Rwanda and other safe countries could go ahead. Only 61 Conservatives backed it, 268 voted against.
"These were compromises that did not go as far as many of us wanted, but we felt they would enable deportations to safe third countries to start and be something nearly all Conservative MPs could support. Sadly, it wasn't to be."
Under maritime law (SOLAS, SAR, UNCLOS), rescued people must be brought to a safe place, not necessarily the nearest coast. Even if all the other treaties were nullified - how are we going to evade this responsibilty?
This seems more accurate than the Matt Goodwin “kill the ECHR” diatribe. I live in the EU and can confirm that other countries that are bound by the ECHR do not do the daft things that the British judiciary, police and civil service do wrt immigration. It’s a problem generated from within Britain’s elite systems.
Goodwin has devalued himself since throwing himself 100% into Reform. I don't take his analysis nor his boasting of polling numbers seriously anymore.
With each passing day I begin to resent Reform more and more. It's that mixture of ignorance, soundbites, cheap shots and treating anyone on the Right who expresses doubts or constructive criticism as apostates to be berated that pisses me off the most.
Take yesterday's idiotic tweet by Zia Yusuf: That the Tories are so bad not only did they create a minister for net zero (true) but that they have a shadow minister for net zero...followed by a trio of tears of laughter emojis. If there is a ministry then the opposition need a shadow minister, even if they want that ministry gone. A shadow minister gets access to information about that department, is there to scrutinise government policy and rebut what it doesn't like. Yusuf just doesn't get it, like he didn't understand how PMQs or the House of Lords work. He revels in ignorance, becoming a new Richard Burgon, and what's depressing is that Reform loyalists lap his utterances up.
Talk about destroying the existing structure sounds more impressive but there's rarely talk about what replaces it. Reform talk about a British Bill of Rights (an idea they stole off Dominic Raab) but I doubt any of them have heard about the 1689 Bill of Rights. Where's the intellectual heft of Reform? Oh, that's right, they purged them.
I was thinking along lines similar to Pete's: We don't need radical overhauling or destruction. We need to fix things. A repair not a revolution. It's within grasp but only if the people in charge are willing to do it.
Dominic Grieve, in yesterday's Independent, throws up similar objections in a piece headed:
"Courts would block Farage’s ‘mass deportation’ plan using common law, says former attorney general
Exclusive: Dominic Grieve has issued a scathing critique of Reform’s immigration plans ahead of a speech by the party’s leader."
The upshot of his piece is that the EU would "collapse the post-Brexit deal" if the UK dared to leave the ECHR. And activist UK judges would find ways to use the law to continue to block deportations.
This is typical Grieve. I think back to his convoluted, legalistic objections to Brexit, not to mention his underhand attempts to thwart it.
As for public/popular messaging on ECHR by Reform and others, I think one can assume that "leave ECHR" is shorthand for also removing the long tentacles of this foreign court in our law, including the Human Rights Act. The broad-brush term "leave the ECHR" can be interpreted in many ways to suit whatever circumstances prevail at the time.
One important point I think should be stressed. It misrepresents Braverman merely to say she wants to "revert" to common law.
What she advocates in her paper, repeatedly and clearly, is a return to the common law and statute that was the prevailing way of doing things before we began outsourcing our governance to foreign courts. This is a significant difference.
If you read the various documents regarding Human Rights, you may notice a general problem:
They should be regarded as hierarchical. But the Universal Declaration recognises no such hierarchy.
The European Convention does recognise a limited hierarchy. Although this seems to have been ignored by the judges. They have de facto upheld the anti-blasphemy against Islam law of the Austrian courts.
And of course, Islam gets in on the production of Human Rights, in practice heavily distorted by the need to be compatible with Sharia.
Have a read of the book "Islam Versus Human Rights". The trwo really are incompatble.
Details are given in this article:
"The Hierarchy of Human Rights
What is the root problem with the ECHR?"
https://hellish2050.substack.com/p/the-hierarchy-of-human-rights
I think a lot could be achieved in government by ditching some of the most 'beancountery' nonsense. Like league tables for performance. I'm certainly not the first critic of these for the police forces, as many have already noticed and bemoaned the fact that if police are to slide up the tables, they need to produce more results, more arrests, more crime 'clear-ups'.
Problem with that is it makes it easy to hector motorists to bump up offences. Or to prosecute mean tweets. Easy gains for their table rankings. If they just ditched the tables and divvied up the police funding in some kind of reasonable way, they could insist police go after 'proper' crimes (eg violent crime, theft and burglary, fraud, etc) which I imagine can sometimes be complex and time-consuming - so not great if you need the points to jump above the neighbouring force!
The bean-counters seem to be everywhere. So unpicking their influence can be applied across multiple policy areas.
Of course, still haul the various commanders and other bosses in for a roasting in the various committees, etc.
A surprising letter from Malcolm RIfkind in The Times today...
...
Sir, I have changed my mind. For years I have opposed the UK withdrawing from, or suspending, the European Convention on Human Rights, despite judges on the European court having interpreted it in a way that was not remotely contemplated when the convention was drafted after the Second World War (news; letters, Aug 27 & 28).
It is now clear to me that being obliged to observe these judgments has been a significant reason why the Labour government is being no more successful than its Conservative predecessor in reducing the lengthy delays in deciding asylum appeals and is also finding it close to impossible to deport illegal migrants who have committed serious crimes.
It is encouraging that several European governments agree that the terms of the convention need to be modernised, but any change will take years and require unanimity that might be unachievable. The public are, rightly, demanding that the government does whatever is needed to stop arrivals and to deport illegal migrants who do not deserve asylum status. I salute David Blunkett and Jack Straw, two former Labour home secretaries, who now want Britain to withdraw from, or suspend, the convention, so far as it applies to illegal migrants. I join them and hope that the prime minister and the cabinet will accept that this is the only way of averting what is becoming a national crisis.
Sir Malcolm Rifkind
Former foreign secretary, London W2
Is there something in the British psyche that commands us to adhere rigidly to formal commitments even when it's patently against our interests? Coupled with a view that to diverge from said commitments we must go through the rigmarole of divorce and/or renegotiation?
It's interesting that while the EU (unlike the ECHR) does appear to have some means of enforcing its rules, even certain EU member states have chosen to just accept the consequences of violating EU law, simply taking on the chin sanctions and other measures.
Could anyone imagine a British government doing something similar?
I asked Google AI what the consequences might be of the UK disapplying the principle of non-refoulement in its domestic law. It appeared to be of the view that the very act of ignoring the ECHR as a signatory state could eventually collapse the GFA & destabilise NI politics: 'potentially destabilizing the peace process and straining relations with Ireland and the EU.'
It also mentions: 'The UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) contains a clause that allows the EU to terminate parts of the agreement related to law enforcement and judicial cooperation if the UK fails to adhere to the ECHR. This would have serious consequences for a wide range of issues, including extradition and security cooperation.'
And: 'A "Devolution Crisis": By disapplying the principle of non-refoulement and ignoring ECHR rulings, the UK government would be undermining the very legal foundation of the devolution settlements. This would create a situation where the UK Parliament is acting against a principle that is legally binding on the devolved legislatures. This would be a profound constitutional conflict.'
Wondered what your thoughts were.
It has never ceased to amaze me the way that the UK slavishly follows every dot of EU law and regulations, while other members simply ignore what they don’t like. 🤷♂️
This is why I voted for Brexit
Wow
Peter still believes in the Tory Party, barely a year after they were annihilated by the electorate.
Lying consistently to the electorate, planning total control of the internet in line with MSM/OFCOM, whilst organising and year by year increasing mass migration in their 14 years in government.
He’s either an utter idiot or in denial - either way he needs his head violently shaken (metaphorically).
A reminder today from Tory ex-MP Jonathan Gullis:
"I find it depressing to see such hostility from some Conservatives towards Reform UK on illegal migration, especially given our own appalling record in government.
"Now should be the time to work collaboratively with Reform UK, prioritising the national interest and the urgent need to stop Channel crossings.
"It is also frustrating to hear some Conservatives talk tough now when they voted against the very measures they claim to support.
"For example, on 16th and 17th January 2024, during the passage of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, some of my colleagues and I tabled two key amendments:
"Amendment 10 disapplied the Human Rights Act 1998 and the ECHR, to stop spurious legal claims blocking deportations. Only 60 Conservatives voted for it, 265 voted against.
"Amendment 23 made ‘Rule 39’ injunctions (so-called pyjama injunctions) non-binding, ensuring flights to Rwanda and other safe countries could go ahead. Only 61 Conservatives backed it, 268 voted against.
"These were compromises that did not go as far as many of us wanted, but we felt they would enable deportations to safe third countries to start and be something nearly all Conservative MPs could support. Sadly, it wasn't to be."
Reform don't want to work with the Conservatives.
Under maritime law (SOLAS, SAR, UNCLOS), rescued people must be brought to a safe place, not necessarily the nearest coast. Even if all the other treaties were nullified - how are we going to evade this responsibilty?
"As such, it's as much a matter of people as it is of policy."
...
Alexander Pope:
“For forms of government let fools contest
Whatever is best administered, is best.”
She has been charged