The Conservatives Said...

[MNW67]

the Human Rights Act makes it very hard to get such legislation through.

It really doesn't. We have been here before. It needs a one line statement from the minister in both houses to say there might be a conflict with the ECHR. The difficulty was trying to get a law passed which basically said black was white. Lots of parliamentarians in both houses thought that looked bad. Anyway, it seemed to pass relatively quickly.

 

[Brigadier]

They didn't skimp on the lawyering, the Human Rights Act makes it very hard to get such legislation through. They would have got there in the end.

No matter what you think of it, it was pretty dumb to drop it with out a plan B.

So, rewrite the law. Given a mandate, that is what the government is there for.


That they did not, but instead attempted to persist in pizzing taxpayer money up against the wall on a fool's errand, shows just how useless they were.

 

[motorbiking]

It really doesn't. We have been here before.

I recall. I must admit, I didn't understand your thinking then either.

So, rewrite the law. Given a mandate, that is what the government is there for.


That they did not, but instead attempted to persist in pizzing taxpayer money up against the wall on a fool's errand, shows just how useless they were.

Sorry folks we need to cancel some of your "human rights" in order to get this legislation through.

Calling it the Human rights act, Makes it hard to repeal / reform.

 

[MNW67]

I recall. I must admit, I didn't understand your thinking then either.

It is very straight forward. The only difference in the procedure for passing legislation since the HRA came in to force, is that it needs a short statement confirming whether there is a conflict with the ECHR. But as so often, you seem to want to invent your own legal principles. In this case you claim it is much harder to pass a law. But it isn't, as the HRA section below demonstrates:

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.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

They didn't skimp on the lawyering, the Human Rights Act makes it very hard to get such legislation through. They would have got there in the end.

No matter what you think of it, it was pretty dumb to drop it with out a plan B.

So they couldn't get the legislation through, but you think it was sensible to keep spending money and time on it ?

Remind us how many it was limited to ?

 

[motorbiking]

It is very straight forward. The only difference in the procedure for passing legislation since the HRA came in to force, is that it needs a short statement confirming whether there is a conflict with the ECHR. But as so often, you seem to want to invent your own legal principles.

That isn't correct. I've told you the parts that are the problem. These are not my unique opinions, they are well published.

 

[MNW67]

it isn't incorrect. I've told you the parts that are the problem. These are not my unique opinions, they are well published.

Give a link, then, explaining how the actual passing of legislation is more difficult. Your previous link covered completely different matters.

 

[MNW67]

So they couldn't get the legislation through, but you think it was sensible to keep spending money and time on it ?

No, they got the legislation through. It is a total red herring.

 

[Brigadier]

Sorry folks we need to cancel some of your "human rights" in order to get this legislation through.

At least you now realise that your "plan" is nothing other than an unworkable pipe dream.

 

[motorbiking]

At least you now realise that your "plan" is nothing other than an unworkable pipe dream.

What makes you think that?

 

[Brigadier]

What makes you think that?

Your quote, in my post #24

 

[motorbiking]

Give a link, then, explaining how the actual passing of legislation is more difficult. Your previous link covered completely different matters.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1040525/ihrar-final-report.pdf

this highlights some of the issues.

 

[MNW67]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1040525/ihrar-final-report.pdf

this highlights some of the issues.

And yet again it does not cover the issue at hand. You keep saying that the HRA makes it harder to pass legislation. Nothing in that document covers that. It covers lots of other stuff, such as how widely the courts are interpreting the HRA. But there is nothing to support your claim that the HRA makes passing legislation more difficult. Because it doesn't.

Looking at the Rwanda Bill:

The "Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill" includes a statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998, indicating the government acknowledges the bill's provisions may not be compatible with European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) but still wishes to proceed. This means the government cannot definitively state the bill is compatible with human rights, but they are proceeding with it despite this uncertainty.

That is all they had to do. It was easy peasy.

 

[motorbiking]

And yet again it does not cover the issue at hand. You keep saying that the HRA makes it harder to pass legislation. Nothing in that document covers that. It covers lots of other stuff, such as how widely the courts are interpreting the HRA. But there is nothing to support your claim that the HRA makes passing legislation more difficult. Because it doesn't.

Looking at the Rwanda Bill:



That is all they had to do. It was easy peasy.

It's not true, no matter how many times you say it. There was nothing easy for the government in passing this or other laws which are impacted.

I think you should do your own research rather than dismissing others.

Start with - why have successive governments sought to reform the HRA?

 

[MNW67]

It's not true, no matter how many times you say it.

The last refuge of the desperate

You keep flinging irrelevant reports at me. But you seem unable to write a simple paragraph in your own words explaining your reasoning. If you can't do that, at least copy and paste the section of the report which you claim backs up your position.