Migrant channel crossing deal.

[MNW67]

A different question to the one you first asked.

Do you accept this has been explained? Before we move on?

I understand the HRA can be amended. But I just want a simple answer as to how that can be done in a way which will stop the small boats. I have done quite a bit of Googling and cannot find anything to support what you say. If I had made such a claim, I would be able to give a lucid explanation in a couple of short paragraphs. And I expect others to try to do the same. I can't face a hundred pages of going round in circles.

 

[Koolpc]

Woooof!!!!

 

[Odds]

Woooof!!!!

 

[motorbiking]

I understand the HRA can be amended. But I just want a simple answer as to how that can be done in a way which will stop the small boats. I have done quite a bit of Googling and cannot find anything to support what you say. If I knew this stuff, I would be able to give a lucid and simple explanation in a couple of short paragraphs. And I expect others to try to do the same.

I don't think it's possible to give a short explanation. Unless you are willing to accept "because it can".

First you have to go back to the situation before the HRA existed and then look at the goal of creating the HRA. It had 4 purposes.

1) make it easier for people to "enforce" their human rights in the domestic court system.
2) tidy up some additional "rights" not covered by the ECHR obligation
3) Place a statutory duty on all government bodies to comply.
4) Prevent other legislation overriding it and place a burden on the government to assess and report incompatibilities.

A cynical person, would say (5) keep Cherie and her chums in business.

There is nothing wrong with 1 and 2 and all the proposed reforms suggest retaining domestic control of HR issues.

3 & 4 make it hard for a subsequent government to create policies or law that is incompatible and exposes the statutory body to legal challenges, until those challenges are exhausted.

This is at odds with our democratic rights. The people have the right to vote for who we like and a political candidate must have the right to do whatever he pleases in his manifesto. its fairly arrogant for one politician to attempt to bind the hands of future political will.

it was political genius. Who is going to repeal an act called the "Human Rights Act"?

Once you remove 3 & 4, you make it a lot easier for the government of the day to, for example amend the remit of a statutory body (and even tender / outsource it) and make them responsible for preventing illegals from entering our territorial waters with the statutory power to use lawful force etc. They still have the power to do it today, there is just a whole hurdle of judicial review that the government would have to go through. Nothing stops a government passing law that is incompatible with the HRA. It's just a lot more work.

 

[MNW67]

I don't think it's possible to give a short explanation. Unless you are willing to accept "because it can".

First you have to go back to the situation before the HRA existed and then look at the goal of creating the HRA. It had 4 purposes.

1) make it easier for people to "enforce" their human rights in the domestic court system.
2) tidy up some additional "rights" not covered by the ECHR obligation
3) Place a statutory duty on all government bodies to comply.
4) Prevent other legislation overriding it and place a burden on the government to assess and report incompatibilities.

A cynical person, would say (5) keep Cherie and her chums in business.

There is nothing wrong with 1 and 2 and all the proposed reforms suggest retaining domestic control of HR issues.

3 & 4 make it hard for a subsequent government to create policies or law that is incompatible and exposes the statutory body to legal challenges, until those challenges are exhausted.

This is at odds with our democratic rights. The people have the right to vote for who we like and a political candidate must have the right to do whatever he pleases in his manifesto. its fairly arrogant for one politician to attempt to bind the hands of future political will.

it was political genius. Who is going to repeal an act called the "Human Rights Act"?

Once you remove 3 & 4, you make it a lot easier for the government of the day to, for example amend the remit of a statutory body (and even tender / outsource it) and make them responsible for preventing illegals from entering our territorial waters with the statutory power to use lawful force etc. They still have the power to do it today, there is just a whole hurdle of judicial review that the government would have to go through. Nothing stops a government passing law that is incompatible with the HRA. It's just a lot more work.

Thanks for that. I'm still no clearer, though. Do you have any sort of link to any article or anything else which discusses this. I have really struggled to find anything at all. Or is this all your own reasoning.

 

[MNW67]

Once you remove 3 & 4, you make it a lot easier for the government of the day to, for example amend the remit of a statutory body (and even tender / outsource it) and make them responsible for preventing illegals from entering our territorial waters with the statutory power to use lawful force etc. They still have the power to do it today, there is just a whole hurdle of judicial review that the government would have to go through. Nothing stops a government passing law that is incompatible with the HRA. It's just a lot more work.

This might be the most relevant bit. I will try to summarise what I think you are saying:

At the moment the UK government does not need to follow a ruling from the courts under either the HRA or the ECHR that a law in incompatible. But if a government is minded to pass a law which is incompatible, then amending the HRA would make it more difficult for that law to be challenged. Even though, as it stands, the government can actually ignore the ruling if it really wants to.

 

[motorbiking]

This might be the most relevant bit. I will try to summarise what I think you are saying:

At the moment the UK government does not need to follow a ruling from the courts under either the HRA or the ECHR that a law in incompatible. But if a government is minded to pass a law which is incompatible, then amending the HRA would make it more difficult for that law to be challenged. Even though, as it stands, the government can actually ignore the ruling if it really wants to.

No.

This is not a subject that can be discussed in a few paragraphs. Feel free to start a new thread if you want.

 

[motorbiking]

Thanks for that. I'm still no clearer, though. Do you have any sort of link to any article or anything else which discusses this. I have really struggled to find anything at all. Or is this all your own reasoning.

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/human-rights-act-1998-does-it-need-replacing/

 

[MNW67]

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/human-rights-act-1998-does-it-need-replacing/

I've already read that. It's just a general paper about why the the HRA needs amending.

This is going nowhere. I'm out.

 

[denso13]

Of those that welcome illegal immigrants.

That will be nobody then...

 

[noseall]

Trolling you inferred? Here is what was posted....

We can stop them coming here, but first we must repeal all ties to the ECHR.
It is very simple.
The hard part is finding someone with the bottle, and backing to do it.

To which MBK replied (quoting the above post)....

Actually we don’t need to. It was Blair who enshrined it in U.K. Law via the Human Rights act. Just need to amend that - sorted

Utter bollax.

Trolling my arse, Billy.

 

[Koolpc]

That will be nobody then...

Except for you and your gang on these forums..

 

[denso13]

Except for you and your gang on these forums..

No, stop lying.

 

[noseall]

No.

This is not a subject that can be discussed in a few paragraphs.

How about one paragraph...

Actually we don’t need to. It was Blair who enshrined it in U.K. Law via the Human Rights act. Just need to amend that - sorted

Usual nonsense from liar MBK.

 

[Lirefighter]

I don't think it's possible to give a short explanation. Unless you are willing to accept "because it can".

First you have to go back to the situation before the HRA existed and then look at the goal of creating the HRA. It had 4 purposes.

1) make it easier for people to "enforce" their human rights in the domestic court system.
2) tidy up some additional "rights" not covered by the ECHR obligation
3) Place a statutory duty on all government bodies to comply.
4) Prevent other legislation overriding it and place a burden on the government to assess and report incompatibilities.

A cynical person, would say (5) keep Cherie and her chums in business.

There is nothing wrong with 1 and 2 and all the proposed reforms suggest retaining domestic control of HR issues.

3 & 4 make it hard for a subsequent government to create policies or law that is incompatible and exposes the statutory body to legal challenges, until those challenges are exhausted.

This is at odds with our democratic rights. The people have the right to vote for who we like and a political candidate must have the right to do whatever he pleases in his manifesto. its fairly arrogant for one politician to attempt to bind the hands of future political will.

it was political genius. Who is going to repeal an act called the "Human Rights Act"?

Once you remove 3 & 4, you make it a lot easier for the government of the day to, for example amend the remit of a statutory body (and even tender / outsource it) and make them responsible for preventing illegals from entering our territorial waters with the statutory power to use lawful force etc. They still have the power to do it today, there is just a whole hurdle of judicial review that the government would have to go through. Nothing stops a government passing law that is incompatible with the HRA. It's just a lot more work.

I'm still undecided on whether, Blair's actions were born of good intent, or if he was simply an evil genius.
There's no doubt that the guy is very smart, which is why I can't help leaning towards the latter.
He surely must have known that what he was doing would lead to such conflict?