Reform immigration plan

[MNW67]

Courts would block Farage’s ‘mass deportation’ plan using common law, says former attorney general

That seems to be from an interview in the Independent with Dominic Grieve.

It leads on from the other example I gave yesterday. In this case, there is nothing to stop Parliament passing a bill saying they will return people to countries where they face torture and execution. Basically, Parliament can pass any law it wants. Even when there isn't a majority in the House of Lords. There is a mechanism called the Parliament Act which means that, if the Lords object, then the government just has to wait a year for that law to come into effect.

What Domininc Grieve is saying is that there is a possibility that the courts might be able to stop a deportation in the most extreme examples. For instance, in a case where a life was in danger or a person would face torture.

But what Dominic Grieve doesn't say is that, if the law has been drafted very tightly, to cover all those scenarios, then the courts won't be able to stop such deportations..

But on what the courts might still do, he added: “You still can’t rule out that a court might – in the case of somebody where it was quite clear they were going to be deported, in circumstances where their lives would be seriously at risk in their home country – intervene to stop deportation under customary law or even the common law.”

Courts would block Farage’s ‘mass deportation’ plan, 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

www.independent.co.uk

 

[Notch7]

That seems to be from an interview in the Independent with Dominic Grieve.

It leads on from the other example I gave yesterday. In this case, there is nothing to stop Parliament passing a bill saying they will return people to countries where they face torture and execution. Basically, Parliament can pass any law it wants. Even when there isn't a majority in the House of Lords. There is a mechanism called the Parliament Act which means that, if the Lords object, then the government just has to wait a year for that law to come into effect.

What Domininc Grieve is saying is that there is a possibility that the courts might be able to stop a deportation in the most extreme examples. For instance, in a case where a life was in danger or a person would face torture.

But what Dominic Grieve doesn't say is that, if the law has been drafted very tightly, to cover all those scenarios, then the courts won't be able to stop such deportations..

Courts would block Farage’s ‘mass deportation’ plan, 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

www.independent.co.uk

To do what you say would mean a Reform govt would have to be stuffed full of liars and spivs.

Where would Reform get all its MPs from, it only has 5 currently.

I suppose we would need to look at the calibre of Reform councillors to get an idea……….and they are utterly incompetent.

 

[MNW67]

To do what you say would mean a Reform govt would have to be stuffed full of liars and spivs.

Where would Reform get all its MPs from, it only has 5 currently.

I suppose we would need to look at the calibre of Reform councillors to get an idea……….and they are utterly incompetent.

I believe that, nearer the election, these proposals will actually be watered down. I don't believe that, when faced with the reality, the British public will vote for people to be sent to face torture and/or execution.

 

[motorbiking]

He isn’t an immigration lawyer.

Just a “legal commentator” in other words a journalist

Joshua Rozenberg "After taking a law degree at Oxford, Joshua trained as a solicitor, qualifying in 1976."
He's also an KC hons, the only journalist to be awarded this.

Would you like some analysis from a "proper" lawyer?

 

[pete01]

 

[motorbiking]

What Domininc Grieve is saying is that there is a possibility that the courts might be able to stop a deportation in the most extreme examples. For instance, in a case where a life was in danger or a person would face torture.

But what Dominic Grieve doesn't say is that, if the law has been drafted very tightly, to cover all those scenarios, then the courts won't be able to stop such deportations..

The courts have the ability to "misinterpret" the legislation, possibly deliberately so. In effect they are saying "did you really mean this? we don't think you did". The government then has to amend the law to say "yes we really did". There are plenty of examples where government have had to amend a law, due to arguably "perverse" rulings by the courts.

You were told this yesterday and said it was:

Utter gibberish and boll@x.

Do you accept you were wrong?

 

[Notch7]

Joshua Rozenberg "After taking a law degree at Oxford, Joshua trained as a solicitor, qualifying in 1976."
He's also an KC hons, the only journalist to be awarded this.

Would you like some analysis from a "proper" lawyer?

“Trained as a solicitor”

So he can do house conveyancing and divorce.

 

[Notch7]

Some rando on tik tok

 

[Notch7]

I don't believe that, when faced with the reality, the British public will vote for people to be sent to face torture and/or execution

I think you are wrong.

Reform supporters on this forum, like Mottie, Motorbiking, Filly etc would absolutely vote for people to be sent for torture.

 

[motorbiking]

“Trained as a solicitor”

So he can do house conveyancing and divorce.

So can you. There is no requirement to be a legal professional. The important thing is knowledge.

But you are deflecting. You seem to want to question his expertise.. There are similar claims from others also with expertise.

 

[motorbiking]

I think you are wrong.

Reform supporters on this forum, like Mottie, Motorbiking, Filly etc would absolutely vote for people to be sent for torture.

NotchyFacts™ engages hyper-lie-drive again.

 

[MNW67]

The courts have the ability to "misinterpret" the legislation, possibly deliberately so. In affect they are saying "did you really mean this? we don't think you did". The government then has to amend the law to say "yes we really did". There are plenty of examples where government have had to amend a law, due to arguably perverse rulings by the courts.

At least you now seem to have accepted that Parliament can pass any law it wants. So, to move on to your point about the conflict with the common law. Parliamentary laws will always override the common law. So, it depends how tightly the law has been drafted:

Consider two alternative wordings:

"All asylum seekers will be returned to their home country"

or

"All asylum seekers will be returned to their home country in all situations including when they might face execution and/or torture"

With the first wording, the law could possibly be challenged in the courts.

With the second wording, the law can't be challenged in the courts.

 

[Notch7]

So can you. There is no requirement to be a legal professional. The important thing is knowledge.

But you are deflecting. You seem to want to question his expertise.. There are similar claims from others also with expertise.

I’m just pointing out he is not the legal expert as claimed in the article


The article glosses over loads of stumbling blocks, one key one is how you deport people back to countries which have no functioning democracy and appalling human rights abuses, such as: Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen, Eritrea

The article doesn’t deal with Farages totally fictitious numbers: “detention centre to house 24,000” - that would cost £12b where’s the money coming from?

I suppose Farage will have plenty of money when he privatises the NHS

 

[Notch7]

NotchyFacts™ engages hyper-lie-drive again.

Do you support Reforms immigration plans or not?

 

[motorbiking]

I’m just pointing out he is not the legal expert as claimed in the article

Why are you saying he is not a legal expert?