Reform UK - A symptom of all that is wrong?

[PurplePenguin]

911hope said:

PurplePenguin said:

Not really. You think the UK can’t be trusted to monitor its own human rights. How do other countries in the world manage without their hands being held by the ECHR?

Edited by PurplePenguin on Monday 8th July 16:15

The previous UK government passed a law that stated Rwanda (an unsafe country) to be safe to enable the appalling deportation plan. The Tory MPs voted it in, so shows that they were prepared to abandon any integrity they had for narrow political ends.

This was a government pandering to far right forces and is an example of being wholly untrustworthy.

There needs to be safeguards.

So you agree that any UK government cannot be trusted to ensure human rights?

[Dave200]

PurplePenguin said:

On what?

Fair play, you've absolutely excelled yourself in this thread today.

In trying to prove that Reform voters understand immigration and what they voted for, you've managed to prove the complete opposite.

[eharding]

PurplePenguin said:

How do you reconcile the fact that there are countries around the world with robust human rights laws but don’t have a body such as the ECHR?

Example?

[chrispmartha]

PurplePenguin said:

President Merkin said:

PurplePenguin said:

I think your own coarse and derogatory language doesn’t really give you the moral high ground.

I think the last government was a st show - maybe Labour will be different but past performance unfortunately is an indicator of future performance - hopefully it will be different this time.

I don’t recall commenting personally on Rwanda etc

This is all very interesting but as expected it's discursive. You have been saying this afternoon that in effect, leaving the ECHR would be no bad thing because any future government would ensure our rights are protected. Several of us have pointed out that the last government specifically defied our own supreme court to legislate in support of their Rwanda policy & therefore the idea that governments can be trusted to act in people's interests cannot be relied upon.

I don't care what you think of the last government or speculation on Labour's approach. I want you to answer the question on how you can trust a future government with our rights but you seem repeatedly unwilling to do so.

I know why I think you won't.

I suppose you might be right - you think so little of this country and its democratic process, that human rights protection need to be outsourced. I would like to think, as a country, we are better than that. You obviously don’t think any UK government ultimately can be trusted with human rights.
This is where we differ.

How do you reconcile the fact that there are countries around the world with robust human rights laws but don’t have a body such as the ECHR?

Tell the families of the hilsborough disaster that you can trust the government to look after human rights.

There will be many other examples similar aswell, it’s not all about looking after asylum seekers rights.

[bitchstewie]

Or the victims of the Windrush scandal.

[PurplePenguin]

eharding said:

PurplePenguin said:

How do you reconcile the fact that there are countries around the world with robust human rights laws but don’t have a body such as the ECHR?

Example?

Australia?
However, given that the ECHR doesn’t oversee human rights in all of the world’s countries and there are not widespread human rights abuses in many of those countries - the ECHR is not absolutely essential to maintain human rights QED.

[Mortarboard]

PurplePenguin said:

Australia?
However, given that the ECHR doesn’t oversee human rights in all of the world’s countries and there are not widespread human rights abuses in many of those countries - the ECHR is not absolutely essential to maintain human rights QED.

And what actions do you want to see taken, that the ECHR currently prevents you from doing?

M.

[chrispmartha]

PurplePenguin said:

eharding said:

PurplePenguin said:

How do you reconcile the fact that there are countries around the world with robust human rights laws but don’t have a body such as the ECHR?

Example?

Australia?
However, given that the ECHR doesn’t oversee human rights in all of the world’s countries and there are not widespread human rights abuses in many of those countries - the ECHR is not absolutely essential to maintain human rights QED.

Yeah you might want to do a bit of research on Australia

https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human...

[bitchstewie]

It's actually funny.

Imagine being so consumed with anger at migrants that you'll tear up something that we were the first nation to sign up to and which guarantees people rights on a whim.

All these people know how to do is destroy.

And they call themselves patriots.

[handpaper]

Mrr T said:

You do know the EU had nothing to do with ECHR. The ECHR was drafted in 1950 and came into force in 1953 the organisation which is now the EU was founded in 1957.

had

The ECJ and ECHR routinely cite each other's rulings. The difference between their purposes and ambits has been eroding since before the UK HRA was passed.

[PurplePenguin]

Mortarboard said:

PurplePenguin said:

Australia?
However, given that the ECHR doesn’t oversee human rights in all of the world’s countries and there are not widespread human rights abuses in many of those countries - the ECHR is not absolutely essential to maintain human rights QED.

And what actions do you want to see taken, that the ECHR currently prevents you from doing?

M.

That wasn’t really my point.

[PurplePenguin]

chrispmartha said:

PurplePenguin said:

eharding said:

PurplePenguin said:

How do you reconcile the fact that there are countries around the world with robust human rights laws but don’t have a body such as the ECHR?

Example?

Australia?
However, given that the ECHR doesn’t oversee human rights in all of the world’s countries and there are not widespread human rights abuses in many of those countries - the ECHR is not absolutely essential to maintain human rights QED.

Yeah you might want to do a bit of research on Australia

https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human...

So the ECHR covers Australia as well?

[handpaper]

Dave200 said:

handpaper said:

Dave200 said:

How else would you describe a party that publicly demonises immigrants?

I would describe such a party, in Britain's current political landscape, as 'non-existent'.

Actual verbal attacks on legal immigrants from UK politicians are vanishingly rare and always disavowed by their parties.

Because every sensible person (and not a few outright loons) acknowledge that the fault lies with the policy, not those taking advantage of it.

Stop lying.

Remember Farage publicly claiming the "COVID crisis" at the immigrant processing centre in Dover in 2021? Remember how it transpired that none of the 12 people at that centre actually had COVID?

Remember Farage blaming the NHS crisis on immigrants in 2018? Remember how that was completely disproven as a lie?

Remember how earlier this year he told the BBC that 'We have to provide a new home every two minutes in this country just to deal with net migration'? Remember how there were absolutely no facts or data that could back this up, and it was a complete manipulation of the facts?

This is using lies to blame immigrants for our problems. This is demonising immigrants in public. This is a classic far-right tactic to scare voters.

I go on and list out all of his lies, but it would be a waste of time because some folks here are so deep in the hole that they are struggling to see daylight.

Dave200 said:

Didn't think this would get any response. I guess burying your head in the sand and pretending Farage doesn't lie about immigrants to get people all angsty is probably easier than confronting the truth.

Sorry, some of us have lives.

Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between criticism of immigration policy and criticism of immigrants themselves?
Because one happens, and the other does not.

[Mortarboard]

PurplePenguin said:

That wasn’t really my point.

It is if you want to get rid of it.....

M.

[President Merkin]

PurplePenguin said:

I suppose you might be right - you think so little of this country and its democratic process, that human rights protection need to be outsourced. I would like to think, as a country, we are better than that. You obviously don’t think any UK government ultimately can be trusted with human rights.
This is where we differ.

How do you reconcile the fact that there are countries around the world with robust human rights laws but don’t have a body such as the ECHR?

I see since we last spoke, you have been given further examples of the need for codified human rights. However, looping back to this post ^^ you ought to know, assuming that you want to be taken seriously that we, the UK, were instrumental in drafting the Universal declaration of human rights and the ECHR. It is by definition, not outsourced. That is a right wing trope, nothing more.

You ought also to know that the Human rights act of 1998 gave UK courts the facility to hear human rights cases that would previously have been referred to the ECHR but within our courts. You clearly know neither of these things but are tripping over youself to repeat Reform lines. It's a pity that lots of guys in here are only too willing to not only display their ignorance but insist on it. Entrenched is never good.

[Dave200]

bhstewie said:

It's actually funny.

Imagine being so consumed with anger at 2% of migrants that you'll tear up something that we were the first nation to sign up to and which guarantees people rights on a whim.

All these people know how to do is destroy.

And they call themselves patriots.

FTFY

[chrispmartha]

PurplePenguin said:

chrispmartha said:

PurplePenguin said:

eharding said:

PurplePenguin said:

How do you reconcile the fact that there are countries around the world with robust human rights laws but don’t have a body such as the ECHR?

Example?

Australia?
However, given that the ECHR doesn’t oversee human rights in all of the world’s countries and there are not widespread human rights abuses in many of those countries - the ECHR is not absolutely essential to maintain human rights QED.

Yeah you might want to do a bit of research on Australia

https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human...

So the ECHR covers Australia as well?

Geography not your strong point i see

[turbobloke]

bhstewie said:

Imagine being so consumed with anger at migrants...

Your construct. Many people of various political persuasions aren't perpetually offended, including by migrants.

bhstewie said:

All these people know how to do is destroy.

And they call themselves patriots.

A false dichotomy (construction / destruction). We could have our own improved brand and be patriots still. Canada does well enough.

It's not as though the ECHR is some paragon, it's merely sufficiently damp in its decisions to pass the wet test. An ongoing problem rests with its judges, which include in their number academics, civil servants and politicians. Experience as a lawyer, never mind judge? Not necessary.

[PurplePenguin]

Mortarboard said:

PurplePenguin said:

That wasn’t really my point.

It is if you want to get rid of it.....

M.

No. I don’t think I will - freedom of expression

[Dagnir]

W124 said:

Dagnir said:

W124 said:

How though? Specifically. With respect. Would you ‘get immigration right down’ - in practical terms? Both legal and illegal. How could this actually be done?

It's not a quick or simple fix and the solution would be pretty convoluted but the VISAs aren't stamping themselves.

Leave the ehcr.
Reject all asylum cases.
Stop losing track of people while they're being processed.
Allow less dependants.
Benefits/housing for immigrants only in the short term and for extreme cases.
Tighten qualification requirements.
Tighten work VISA requirements.
Sort out the native benefits scroungers and get the young into.the low paid jobs instead.
Rerfom the NHS and cut out the bloated bureaucracy to allow us to offer proper wages to homegrown doctors and nurses.
Deport immigrant criminals in every single case possible.



That's off the top of my head, so there will be gaps and probably missed loads of things and this would be a process over time rather than a quick fix!

Thanks for answering. Appreciated. But these things will take many years. Decades.

To take one point. You say ‘leave the ECHR’ - but how? Lots of your other suggestions stem from that. But as you say, that is not the work of a moment. Do you think any party with that as a manifesto pledge is anywhere near power in this country?

It’s idealism. It’s just idealism.

The first thing to do is process the claims we have. Then next steps, if any.

Also, you are conflating legal and illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is beyond our control. Don’t fool yourself about this. It’s beyond our control now, and it always will be.

Legal immigration we can do something about - but our economy, in the short to medium term, cannot function without it. So - practically, how to get from here to there.

You say ‘ Sort out the native benefits scroungers and get the young into.the low paid jobs instead’ - but how? This will take decades - and who pays for it?

It’s all idealism. Just words. In fact, without wishing to be rude, I genuinely am not, pick one bullet point off your list and tell me, precisely, how it would be done. Without unintended consequences.

The reason why the previous gouvernment said one thing and did another is because they know, as things stand, the situation on legal and illegal migration is something we are stuck with. They simply seek to make political capital out of claiming otherwise. Farage and Tice are exactly the same.

God forbid we should have an adult conversation about it. Anything, anything but the truth.

Just because the right solution is the hardest one or takes the longest, doesn't stop it being the best way to address the issue. Far better than pappering over thr cracks as we have been.

The ECHR...stop complying if need be but there must be a legal process for revoking our commitment, or at the least suggesting an amendment to soothe hysteria around it.

I believe a proportion of migration is legally grey already. The system is evidently being played. Illegal migration can be deterred far more vehemently than it is now.

Thees nothing wrong with ideals as a starting point. That's the issue the Torys have had...no direction. No ideals.

Like I said, it's not a quick fix and there are loads of moving, inter-connected parts (benefits, wage growth, housing, birth rates etc. etc.) but I believe that's generally how we should be approaching things for a proper, long term solution.