"we at some point need an elected government, and parliament to assert its own authority and start doing things - worrying about the diplomatic and legal niceties later."
..
Glad I can agree with you on that. We certainly don't want to contribute to building an international rights structure complete with courts, judges and, eventually, enforcement.
One should bear in mind that Braverman's ECHR initiative is as much a political act as a technical statement. Whatever one may think of the technics, she has achieved the political effect of getting the topic on the agenda and moving the window.
Whether the HRA can be sufficiently tamed while still in the ECHR remains, in my view, an open question.
Rwanda was a good idea in principle, but totally impractical.
Choose somewhere like the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, possibly some remote Scottish Islands, possibly Ascension Island at a push (too nice a climate though). They are all British, the the EU/ECHR can therefore go forth and multiply as it has nothing to do with them. Bung any locals a million quid a person to relocate; it'll still be cheaper than renting Travelodge for hundreds in city centres for years on end. Such remote places will also reduce the number of children they can potentially sexually assault - unless it is their own which is unlikely as 95% of 'asylum seekers' are young males fleeing hostility yet leaving their wives and children there.
Amazing that no politician and nobody in the civil service thought of this. But then again that would have required a commitment to actually solving this problem - which is not part of their agenda.
Then again, Starmenfuhrer will probably give away most of these islands in the near future to prevent such action - and pay millions for the privilege.
Not (AFAIK) a politician or civil servant, but this piece purports to be a handwaving costed scheme for using our various overseas territories for housing these unwelcome migrants; including transit facilities on otherwise unused Scottish Isles.
Not that I know the exact details but the likes of Hungary and others in the EU are getting tough on immigration so my point is the same as Publius in that:-
" we at some point need an elected government, and parliament to assert its own authority and start doing things - worrying about the diplomatic and legal niceties later."
It's called grasping the nettle ( in old currency/language - no offence to nettles or nettle lovers ☺️) - I'm now of the view that, like Brexit, immigration is that supurating wound that will ( can) never heal by itself - in which case we either grasp the nettle and deal with it or pretend like our European colleagues and disapply it and take our punishment* - it's hard to think that things could be worse than what they are.
* do as Italians do ( and Australians) - gently nudge the boats back from whence they came - hoping that France will either save them or leave them to the vagueries of the sea.
Until the so-called “liberal elite” and their families personally suffer from the effects of 3rd world immigration, you will face *intense* opposition from the legal profession, NGOs, charities, civil service, academia and politicians regarding leaving the ECHR and any attempt to properly control immigration.
By this so-called “liberal elite” I mean the likes of Emily Maitlis, Alastair Campbell and his podcast sidekick Rory Stewart, the tosser at the Good Law Project, the Miliband brothers, senior judges and civil servants and so on.
If Elon Musk really wanted to radically influence British politics, there is one way he could do it.
It would cost a fair amount of money, but he can easily afford it.
He could buy up lots of properties where these types live. If you know London, the areas are obvious. Places like Hampstead, Highgate, Notting Hill, Holland Park, the nicer parts of Camden and Islington etc.
Then allow any old Albanian, Somali, Afghan, Roma etc. to live in these places for a nominal rent. Preference to be given to illegals and those with criminal records. He could even pay their utility bills for them and so on. He could start with emptying out the Roma encampment on Park Lane, which in various forms has been there for years.
Make the home lives of the “liberal elite” an abject misery and their attitudes to immigration would change quickly and radically.
There would be an uproar (from them) even in the early stages of such a plan, once it became known what was being done.
You might argue that people in such neighbourhoods would stick together and refuse to sell. But would they? Offer someone enough money for their property and they would take it, on the basis that if they don’t, someone else will. Think of it as first mover advantage.
None of them invested will ever change their stance, ever. We know this from the English civil war and France’s. They believe they’re different, superior and/or chosen. Malignant Narcissism cannot be cured, its pathological, and that’s what we’re dealing with.
Thanks for the commentary on this. Fwiw I would agree with you. We don't want endless debates about NI and we know that the EU, ROI and the catholic parties in NI will kick up a stink about any changes to the GFA. Given they all have a say in any changes to NI's governmental framework, then I would leave well alone.
So we should do what the French do - profess that we love the principle of the ECHR but that in some limited situations it doesn't serve the interests of the British state as determined by an elected parliament. As you say every other western European country has similar issues so we will at least get a hearing.
We have to recognise that immigration at the current rates for much longer will destroy both Britain and western Europe as we know it. The Roman empire survived for centuries with controlled.immigration. it fell in that 5th century as it lost control of its borders and so huge numbers of Germanic tribes poured over the frontiers and set up successor states.
Sadly Andrew - I doubt we will get a hearing - yes, others will get a hearing but we Brexited* - the french and Germans can never, will never forgive us. Just listen to their leaders.
* acutely conscious that ECHR and EU different beasts in different stables
What do you think of BlackbeltBarrister (I don’t trust he is not biased, his channel seems secure, probably monetised and YT promotes him) but he mentions that laws previous to the HR and ECHR laws exist in England for human rights and safety.
Would we fall back on them if HR and ECHR were torn up and does it really matter to rewrite a new bill with a heavily biased judiciary and well-funded lawfare system working against the ethnics favour? The ethnics need a bank from which to fund its own legal battles, maybe Restore Britain can start one?
"we at some point need an elected government, and parliament to assert its own authority and start doing things - worrying about the diplomatic and legal niceties later."
..
Glad I can agree with you on that. We certainly don't want to contribute to building an international rights structure complete with courts, judges and, eventually, enforcement.
One should bear in mind that Braverman's ECHR initiative is as much a political act as a technical statement. Whatever one may think of the technics, she has achieved the political effect of getting the topic on the agenda and moving the window.
Whether the HRA can be sufficiently tamed while still in the ECHR remains, in my view, an open question.
Rwanda was a good idea in principle, but totally impractical.
Choose somewhere like the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, possibly some remote Scottish Islands, possibly Ascension Island at a push (too nice a climate though). They are all British, the the EU/ECHR can therefore go forth and multiply as it has nothing to do with them. Bung any locals a million quid a person to relocate; it'll still be cheaper than renting Travelodge for hundreds in city centres for years on end. Such remote places will also reduce the number of children they can potentially sexually assault - unless it is their own which is unlikely as 95% of 'asylum seekers' are young males fleeing hostility yet leaving their wives and children there.
Amazing that no politician and nobody in the civil service thought of this. But then again that would have required a commitment to actually solving this problem - which is not part of their agenda.
Then again, Starmenfuhrer will probably give away most of these islands in the near future to prevent such action - and pay millions for the privilege.
Not (AFAIK) a politician or civil servant, but this piece purports to be a handwaving costed scheme for using our various overseas territories for housing these unwelcome migrants; including transit facilities on otherwise unused Scottish Isles.
https://restorationist.org.uk/drafting-structural-plans-for-remigration-infrastructure/
Pete has mentioned some article on the site in derisory fashion before, so maybe he'd view the above article in a similar manner?
Gruinard Island (north west Scotland) would be perfect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruinard_Island
Not that I know the exact details but the likes of Hungary and others in the EU are getting tough on immigration so my point is the same as Publius in that:-
" we at some point need an elected government, and parliament to assert its own authority and start doing things - worrying about the diplomatic and legal niceties later."
It's called grasping the nettle ( in old currency/language - no offence to nettles or nettle lovers ☺️) - I'm now of the view that, like Brexit, immigration is that supurating wound that will ( can) never heal by itself - in which case we either grasp the nettle and deal with it or pretend like our European colleagues and disapply it and take our punishment* - it's hard to think that things could be worse than what they are.
* do as Italians do ( and Australians) - gently nudge the boats back from whence they came - hoping that France will either save them or leave them to the vagueries of the sea.
Until the so-called “liberal elite” and their families personally suffer from the effects of 3rd world immigration, you will face *intense* opposition from the legal profession, NGOs, charities, civil service, academia and politicians regarding leaving the ECHR and any attempt to properly control immigration.
By this so-called “liberal elite” I mean the likes of Emily Maitlis, Alastair Campbell and his podcast sidekick Rory Stewart, the tosser at the Good Law Project, the Miliband brothers, senior judges and civil servants and so on.
If Elon Musk really wanted to radically influence British politics, there is one way he could do it.
It would cost a fair amount of money, but he can easily afford it.
He could buy up lots of properties where these types live. If you know London, the areas are obvious. Places like Hampstead, Highgate, Notting Hill, Holland Park, the nicer parts of Camden and Islington etc.
Then allow any old Albanian, Somali, Afghan, Roma etc. to live in these places for a nominal rent. Preference to be given to illegals and those with criminal records. He could even pay their utility bills for them and so on. He could start with emptying out the Roma encampment on Park Lane, which in various forms has been there for years.
Make the home lives of the “liberal elite” an abject misery and their attitudes to immigration would change quickly and radically.
There would be an uproar (from them) even in the early stages of such a plan, once it became known what was being done.
You might argue that people in such neighbourhoods would stick together and refuse to sell. But would they? Offer someone enough money for their property and they would take it, on the basis that if they don’t, someone else will. Think of it as first mover advantage.
Anyone got Musk’s phone number?
None of them invested will ever change their stance, ever. We know this from the English civil war and France’s. They believe they’re different, superior and/or chosen. Malignant Narcissism cannot be cured, its pathological, and that’s what we’re dealing with.
Thanks for the commentary on this. Fwiw I would agree with you. We don't want endless debates about NI and we know that the EU, ROI and the catholic parties in NI will kick up a stink about any changes to the GFA. Given they all have a say in any changes to NI's governmental framework, then I would leave well alone.
So we should do what the French do - profess that we love the principle of the ECHR but that in some limited situations it doesn't serve the interests of the British state as determined by an elected parliament. As you say every other western European country has similar issues so we will at least get a hearing.
We have to recognise that immigration at the current rates for much longer will destroy both Britain and western Europe as we know it. The Roman empire survived for centuries with controlled.immigration. it fell in that 5th century as it lost control of its borders and so huge numbers of Germanic tribes poured over the frontiers and set up successor states.
Sadly Andrew - I doubt we will get a hearing - yes, others will get a hearing but we Brexited* - the french and Germans can never, will never forgive us. Just listen to their leaders.
* acutely conscious that ECHR and EU different beasts in different stables
What do you think of BlackbeltBarrister (I don’t trust he is not biased, his channel seems secure, probably monetised and YT promotes him) but he mentions that laws previous to the HR and ECHR laws exist in England for human rights and safety.
Would we fall back on them if HR and ECHR were torn up and does it really matter to rewrite a new bill with a heavily biased judiciary and well-funded lawfare system working against the ethnics favour? The ethnics need a bank from which to fund its own legal battles, maybe Restore Britain can start one?