Reform immigration plan

[MNW67]

It’s a fact.

motorbiking is just in a bad mood after being pwned for two days in a row over his lack of knowledge of even the most basic Constitutional law principles. It sounds like he's been on the booze again as well.

Anyone who can read knows that the money comes out of the foreign aid budget.

 

[motorbiking]

you weren’t bothered about it in 2023 when there were 400+ asylum hotels

You don’t care about it now.
You care about using it as an opportunity to get a Reform party govt slashing tax for the rich and slashing public services the poor rely on.

I don't know if you have realised. But after the Labour government came to power, its got a f** load worse.

 

[motorbiking]

motorbiking is just in a bad mood after being pwned for two days in a row over his lack of knowledge of even the most basic Constitutional law principles. It sounds like he's been on the booze again as well.

You're funny. You haven't found a single expert who agrees with you.

Anyone who can read knows that the money comes out of the foreign aid budget.

funded by... Taxes.

 

[motorbiking]

Are you claiming that if there were no asylum seekers, you would get a tax cut?

from a Labour government. No chance. I'm squarely in their sights for a good squeeze at the next budget.

The money of course could be spent on useful things, that help the people who live and pay taxes here.

 

[noseall]

how much of your taxes are spent on Brexit.

£2.5k?

 

[MNW67]

If anyone actually is interested in knowing more about how Reform would be able to enact its controversial plans, here is a very basic starting point from the UK Parliament website itself. Basically, it says that Parliamentary Sovereignty is the most fundamental part of the UK constitution. Parliament can pass any law it wants. Also, Parliament is the Supreme legal authority and any law it passes cannot be overruled by the courts.

 

[SPLINE]

On "no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change"... this gets to the very heart of our current predicament. Each time, since Blair, a so-called conservative government has succeeded a Labour one, it has never reversed Labour's communist plan, instead consolidating it. Both of those parties are effectively the same. Will Reform be any different?

 

[MNW67]

On "no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change"... this gets to the very heart of our current predicament. Each time, since Blair, a so-called conservative government has succeeded a Labour one, it has never reversed Labour's communist plan, instead consolidating it. Both of those parties are effectively the same. Will Reform be any different?

Technically, since Blair, a Conservative government has never succeeded a Labour one. But the rest of your point is well made. The Conservatives constantly moan about Labour not changing things which they themselves had many years to change.

 

[motorbiking]

On "no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change"... this gets to the very heart of our current predicament. Each time, since Blair, a so-called conservative government has succeeded a Labour one, it has never reversed Labour's communist plan, instead consolidating it. Both of those parties are effectively the same. Will Reform be any different?

Some governments try their best to make their laws really hard to unpick. If you were writing a guide it would go something like this:
1. Give it a really emotional name like "Protection of Freedom" or "Rights of the Citizen". That way the government who wants to change it looks like the baddy.
2. Intertwine it in any treaty or negotiation so that it cannot be easily undone. "if ever a future government repeals x, this treaty is terminated".
3. Make it superior to other laws. So that the judiciary must uphold its values wherever possible e.g. The Human Rights Act
4. Make it broad and vague creating a whole industry of legal professionals who never want it changed e.g. The Matrimonial Causes Act
5. Use extreme examples that everyone would support to back giving the state extra power e.g. that nasty criminal wont say who was driving when he run over little Jonny. When actually they are attacking the right to silence and to not self incrimination.

 

[MNW67]

Some governments try their best to make their laws really hard to unpick. If you were writing a guide it would go something like this:
1. Give it a really emotional name like "Protection of Freedom" or "Rights of the Citizen". That way the government who wants to change it looks like the baddy.
2. Intertwine it in any treaty or negotiation so that it cannot be easily undone. "if ever a future government repeals x, this treaty is terminated".
3. Make it superior to other laws. So that the judiciary must uphold its values wherever possible e.g. The Human Rights Act
4. Make it broad and vague creating a whole industry of legal professionals who never want it changed e.g. The Matrimonial Causes Act
5. Use extreme examples that everyone would support to back giving the state extra power e.g. that nasty criminal wont say who was driving when he run over little Jonny. When actually they are attacking the right to silence and to not self incrimination.

1) If they were replacing HRA with an equally named Act like the British Bill of Rights, then I don't see that being a problem.

2) Isn't GFA dependent on ECHR rather than HRA.

3) That doesn't stop it being repealed as far as I can tell.

4) I wouldn't worry about upsetting them!

5) I don't understand this one! Is it to do with ECHR/HRA in some way.

 

[noseall]

Some governments try their best to make their laws really hard to unpick. If you were writing a guide it would go something like this:
1. Give it a really emotional name like "Protection of Freedom" or "Rights of the Citizen". That way the government who wants to change it looks like the baddy.
2. Intertwine it in any treaty or negotiation so that it cannot be easily undone. "if ever a future government repeals x, this treaty is terminated".
3. Make it superior to other laws. So that the judiciary must uphold its values wherever possible e.g. The Human Rights Act
4. Make it broad and vague creating a whole industry of legal professionals who never want it changed e.g. The Matrimonial Causes Act
5. Use extreme examples that everyone would support to back giving the state extra power e.g. that nasty criminal wont say who was driving when he run over little Jonny. When actually they are attacking the right to silence and to not self incrimination.

Basically MBK Iis saying give those without a pot to **** in, robust legal protection, like those that have the money to pay for it.

It must boil his pi$$.

 

[SPLINE]

Some governments try their best to make their laws really hard to unpick. If you were writing a guide it would go something like this:
1. Give it a really emotional name like "Protection of Freedom" or "Rights of the Citizen". That way the government who wants to change it looks like the baddy.
2. Intertwine it in any treaty or negotiation so that it cannot be easily undone. "if ever a future government repeals x, this treaty is terminated".
3. Make it superior to other laws. So that the judiciary must uphold its values wherever possible e.g. The Human Rights Act
4. Make it broad and vague creating a whole industry of legal professionals who never want it changed e.g. The Matrimonial Causes Act
5. Use extreme examples that everyone would support to back giving the state extra power e.g. that nasty criminal wont say who was driving when he run over little Jonny. When actually they are attacking the right to silence and to not self incrimination.

And don't forget 6.Staff all the institutions and the public sector with party members.

 

[MNW67]

And don't forget 6.Staff all the institutions and the public sector with party members.

I don't see how that is related to the HRA.

 

[Notch7]

But after the Labour government came to power, its got a f** load worse

No it didn’t.

Aug 2022 under Tories 8,632 arrivals
Aug 2025 under Labour looks like it’s gonna be lower than Aug 2024, Aug 2023, Aug 2022

 

[Notch7]

Some governments try their best to make their laws really hard to unpick. If you were writing a guide it would go something like this:
1. Give it a really emotional name like "Protection of Freedom" or "Rights of the Citizen". That way the government who wants to change it looks like the baddy.
2. Intertwine it in any treaty or negotiation so that it cannot be easily undone. "if ever a future government repeals x, this treaty is terminated".
3. Make it superior to other laws. So that the judiciary must uphold its values wherever possible e.g. The Human Rights Act
4. Make it broad and vague creating a whole industry of legal professionals who never want it changed e.g. The Matrimonial Causes Act
5. Use extreme examples that everyone would support to back giving the state extra power e.g. that nasty criminal wont say who was driving when he run over little Jonny. When actually they are attacking the right to silence and to not self incrimination.

A load of opinion

Nothing factual