Migrant channel crossing deal.

[motorbiking]

I am intrigued by your idea. Just frustrated by your continued inability to explain it cogently. I was hoping somebody else might join in.

You’re welcome to put the ground work in. It’s not exactly a new idea.

 

[noseall]

I frustrated by your continued inability to explain it cogently

You must be new here?

 

[motorbiking]

Labour want to reform it.
Tories wanted to replace it
Reform say they will repeal it.
Many countries agree: https://www.governo.it/sites/governo.it/files/Lettera_aperta_22052025.pdf

Nosenout, the renowned Human Rights expert says - it can't happen.

 

[MNW67]

Labour want to reform it.
Tories wanted to replace it
Reform say they will repeal it.
Many countries agree: https://www.governo.it/sites/governo.it/files/Lettera_aperta_22052025.pdf

I am frustrated because there is an interesting discussion to be had here. If you could break down and analyse each of the current proposals in the way I am able to, then the merits of each could be assessed logically and methodically. But you seem more interested in vague conflations and magical thinking.

For instance, the Labour proposal is to make the way the domestic courts apply Article 8 more prescriptive in immigration cases.

The Tories want to disapply the Human Rights Act in immigration cases. Their reasoning being that the domestic courts are giving more generous protection than the European Court in Strasbourg. So, in immigration cases, the Tories want Human Rights issues to be decided by the European Court instead.

Reform simply want to leave the ECHR entirely.

Various countries want to amend the ECHR to make it easier to deal with immigration cases.

It would also be interesting to assess in what ways the ECHR/HRA is preventing a UK government from reducing the pull factors for illegal immigration. I started doing this in one of my previous answers.

 

[motorbiking]

I am frustrated because there is an interesting discussion to be had here. If you could break down and analyse each of the current proposals in the way I am able to, then the merits of each could be assessed logically and methodically. But you seem more interested in vague conflations and magical thinking.

For instance, the Labour proposal is to make the way the domestic courts apply Article 8 more prescriptive in immigration cases.

The Tories want to disapply the Human Rights Act in immigration cases. Their reasoning being that the domestic courts are giving more generous protection than the European Court in Strasbourg. So, in immigration cases, the Tories want Human Rights issues to be decided by the European Court instead.

Reform simply want to leave the ECHR entirely.

Various countries want to amend the ECHR to make it easier to deal with immigration cases.

You are discussing a massive area of law. You seem more interested than me. I simply stated to Liarfighter, that it wasn't necessary to leave the ECHR, if we amended the HRA. (sec 3 and 6 in particular). I've provided case law which shows that the ECHR, doesn't have much power if we don't impose it ourselves.

It would also be interesting to assess in what ways the ECHR/HRA is preventing a UK government from reducing the pull factors for illegal immigration. I started doing this in one of my previous answers.

I think its probably the other way around.

The current ECHR/HRA is driving behaviour that is increasing the pull factor.

Currently it takes any government of the day a lot of work and a long time to pass any legislation that might be considered at odds with the HRA. They have to "fight" the judiciary at every stage, because of sec 3 and they have to be extremely prescriptive in creating any statutory obligation on a body to act, because of sec 6. We go much further than other countries because we have the HRA and they still complain.

 

[MNW67]

Currently it takes any government of the day a lot of work and a long time to pass any legislation that might be considered at odds with the HRA

No it doesn't. They just have to make a statement saying whether or not it is compatible with ECHR. You are massively over egging the pudding.

 

[motorbiking]

No it doesn't. They just have to make a statement saying whether or not it is compatible with ECHR. You are massively over egging the pudding.

that is incorrect:

Interpretation of legislation.​

(1)So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.

Human Rights Act 1998

An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Acts of public authorities.​

(1)It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

Human Rights Act 1998

An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

 

[MNW67]

that is incorrect:

I am talking about the actual process of passing the Act through Parliament. That is covered by s19 of the Human Rights Act. If the government wants to pass a law which they think might not be compatible with the ECHR then they just have to give a statement. You seem to be conflating other aspects of the Human Rights Act in order to confuse a relatively simple procedure.

19 Statements of compatibility.​

(1) A Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House of Parliament must, before Second Reading of the Bill—

(a) make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights (“a statement of compatibility”); or

(b) make a statement to the effect that although he is unable to make a statement of compatibility the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.

(2) The statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.

 

[MNW67]

Acts of public authorities.​

(1)It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

Human Rights Act 1998

An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes.

www.legislation.gov.uk

Did you miss the bit in bold:

Acts of public authorities.​

(1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an act if—

(a) as the result of one or more provisions of primary legislation, the authority could not have acted differently

You seem to have got much of the process arse about face. But I would be happy to go through a worked hypothetical example to test our understanding. I have a simple one in mind.

 

[motorbiking]

I am talking about the actual process of passing the Act through Parliament. That is covered by s19 of the Human Rights Act. If the government wants to pass a law which they think might not be compatible with the ECHR then they just have to give a statement. You seem to be conflating other aspects of the Human Rights Act in order to confuse a relatively simple procedure.

the HRA exists as a whole.

Did you miss the bit in bold:

no I didn't miss it. - I am making the point that - its purpose as a whole seems to be to tie the hands of future law makers and judiciary.

You seem to have got much of the process arse about face. But I would be happy to go through a worked hypothetical example to test our understanding. I have a simple one in mind.

start a new thread.

 

[MNW67]

the HRA exists as a whole.

Of course. But irrelevant for those of us who understand what the various parts do and how to separate them.

no I didn't miss it. - I am making the point that - its purpose as a whole seems to be to tie the hands of future law makers and judiciary.

That's a bit vague.

start a new thread.

I can do if you are interested. Will you join me on a new thread to work through the hypothetical example. I think it would be a good way to test which of us is closest to being right on this. I have never claimed to be an expert. But it does seem to be one of the bigger issues in politics at the moment, so I think it would be productive.

 

[noseall]

Nosenout, the renowned Human Rights expert says - it can't hahappen.

Liar.
Noseall said amending the HRA won't prevent migrants coming to the UK.
Correct.
Noseall said amending the same Act would require the backing of The Houses (unlikely)
Correct.

Noseall said that MBK is a liar to suggest amending parts of the HRA would stop migrants from coming to the UK.
Correct

Sorted MBK said. Fantasy I said.

 

[Mottie]

Noseall practices illeism.

• Narcissism or Egoism: Some psychologists believe that habitual illeism can be linked to inflated ego or narcissism, where the individual's self-image is so grand that they refer to themselves as an object of admiration.
  
  
• Psychological Disorders: In some cases, illeism might be a symptom of certain psychological disorders, but this is not always the case.

 

[motorbiking]

Liar.
Noseall said amending the HRA won't prevent migrants coming to the UK.

It enables legislation to be passed more easily to provide statutory obligation on a government body to prevent unlawful entry to our territorial waters. (i.e. a pushback act) It would further make it harder for those who want to challenge it, to do so. So not correct.

Noseall said amending the same Act would require the backing of The Houses (unlikely)

A government with a mandate and a majority is able to pass law - surely you understand that? others have also tried to educate you and have been ignored.

Noseall said that MBK is a liar to suggest amending parts of the HRA would stop migrants from coming to the UK.

Nosenout the Troll, likes to pick fights... that he can't win. It upsets him a lot and he keeps coming back for more. Poor lad.

 

[MNW67]

It enables legislation to be passed more easily to provide statutory obligation on a government body to prevent unlawful entry to our territorial waters. (i.e. a pushback act)

Well, it saves the twenty seconds needed for the Minister to read out a one line statement. Call it forty seconds to cover both Houses.

It would further make it harder for those who want to challenge it, to do so.

That is true, although I don't know how much harder.