The case was from 2003 when the Labour government toughened up the asylum rules. But it is actually a very useful case for informing these current discussions, because it was all about the minimum level of support the government could provide without breaching the European Convention on Human Rights. The answer is that it is a lot less than most people would imagine.
-
Looking for a smarter way to manage your heating this winter? We’ve been testing the new Aqara Radiator Thermostat W600 to see how quiet, accurate and easy it is to use around the home. Click here read our review.
Rupert Lowe.
- Thread starter Mottie
- Start date
The case was from 2003 when the Labour government toughened up the asylum rules. But it is actually a very useful case for informing these current discussions, because it was all about the minimum level of support the government could provide without breaching the European Convention on Human Rights. The answer is that it is a lot less than most people would imagine.
- Joined
- 22 Jan 2007
- Messages
- 22,982
- Reaction score
- 3,068
- Country
Scaremongering and not true.
So they can 'flee' to a country and not claim asylum? What’s the point? What happens to them? Presumably, some of these migrants exceed their 90 day limit for being in the EU. If, for example, a Brit exceeded their 90 day limit in the EU, could they just say they were thinking of claiming asylum but are not doing it yet?
I only know what happens in the UK. The migrant has to claim asylum "as soon as is reasonably practicable" after arriving in the UK. The guideline is three days. If they apply later than this, they will not receive any accommodation or money and will be left to fend for themselves. The government will then only act to help if the asylum seeker gets into such a state of destitution that it amounts to inhuman or degrading treatment under the ECHR. This is what the court case mentioned above was about. It was about determining how badly the asylum seekers had to be suffering before they got any help.
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 11,240
- Reaction score
- 955
- Country
Why would they send any asylum seekers back? That would be pretty immoral.
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 11,240
- Reaction score
- 955
- Country
They do that already though. Planes take failed ones back.
The problem has always been that we don't process them quickly.
The ECHR came in after WW2, for conditions at the time. Many people, not just Reform supporters, think it should be scrapped or heavily amended, as it imposes duties on countries inappropriate in the 2020s.
No problem with that, but the influence the UK can have is limited to say the least
Last edited:
The calls for it to be scrapped are surely evidence that it is needed.
They only really need to amend Article 8. That is the one that gets all the headlines about not having the right chicken nuggets etc. in other countries.
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2023
- Messages
- 9,311
- Reaction score
- 6,391
- Country
