I respectfully agree with your earlier contributors; largely- so far!- this is so much rhetoric and an appeal to those sections of the electorate relied upon as insular and with irreversible “little Englander” tendencies. This inadequate, mediocre (on a good day) and embarrassing government appears to proceed on the premise that a sufficient chunk of the electorate, even when confronted with individual hardship and worse for aspirant migrants in adversity, would care just as little as would it.
Two further points:
. I put it delicately : I wonder just how many (or do I mean few?) “specialist “ immigration lawyers would view Suella Braverman as amongst their doyennes? I ask out of a genuine spirit of inquiry.
. Leaving aside the (so important) minutiae of the law in this fraught area, I am profoundly ashamed of and embarrassed by “our” “government”’s callous regard both for the niceties of the law and for the welfare of so many of fellow inhabitants of this planet. In turns, those observing “us” from abroad must, in turn, be shocked by “our” antics AND, at best, view “us” as a laughing stock.
I agree with your analysis but don’t you think the whole thing is a diversion.
People claiming asylum do so under the Refugee Convention not under the EHRC. He does not suggest we withdraw from the RC. The EHRC obviously has some effect on some of the cases but usually only those where the case for Refugee status is not clearly within the convention. It may also have an effect on the hopeless deterrent efforts the government (all governments - Labour or Tory) have tried to “stem the tide”.
Unfortunately, thanks to the state of the World, there is zero chance the tide will turn.
All I see here is a bit of the usual posturing by a politician. The ECHR is a particular juicy target because it contains the word “European”. The ignorant still think it has something to do with the EU.
I can’t see this going anywhere. How many people really want to do away with, for example, Article 8 - the right to family life. Is that a foreign, or worse, European value?
“The government is planning new legislation that would make it illegal for those who arrive illegally to claim asylum in the UK.“ What precisely is it that makes it illegal about arriving “illegally”? Which laws are broken?
I respectfully agree with your earlier contributors; largely- so far!- this is so much rhetoric and an appeal to those sections of the electorate relied upon as insular and with irreversible “little Englander” tendencies. This inadequate, mediocre (on a good day) and embarrassing government appears to proceed on the premise that a sufficient chunk of the electorate, even when confronted with individual hardship and worse for aspirant migrants in adversity, would care just as little as would it.
Two further points:
. I put it delicately : I wonder just how many (or do I mean few?) “specialist “ immigration lawyers would view Suella Braverman as amongst their doyennes? I ask out of a genuine spirit of inquiry.
. Leaving aside the (so important) minutiae of the law in this fraught area, I am profoundly ashamed of and embarrassed by “our” “government”’s callous regard both for the niceties of the law and for the welfare of so many of fellow inhabitants of this planet. In turns, those observing “us” from abroad must, in turn, be shocked by “our” antics AND, at best, view “us” as a laughing stock.
Not,NOT in my name!
I agree with your analysis but don’t you think the whole thing is a diversion.
People claiming asylum do so under the Refugee Convention not under the EHRC. He does not suggest we withdraw from the RC. The EHRC obviously has some effect on some of the cases but usually only those where the case for Refugee status is not clearly within the convention. It may also have an effect on the hopeless deterrent efforts the government (all governments - Labour or Tory) have tried to “stem the tide”.
Unfortunately, thanks to the state of the World, there is zero chance the tide will turn.
All I see here is a bit of the usual posturing by a politician. The ECHR is a particular juicy target because it contains the word “European”. The ignorant still think it has something to do with the EU.
I can’t see this going anywhere. How many people really want to do away with, for example, Article 8 - the right to family life. Is that a foreign, or worse, European value?
“The government is planning new legislation that would make it illegal for those who arrive illegally to claim asylum in the UK.“ What precisely is it that makes it illegal about arriving “illegally”? Which laws are broken?