woodieallen
Established Member
Not totally accurate in any aspect.
Keir Starmer
- Thread starter Delaney
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
It's only totted up to that by adding the past 4 years up. Not since entering govt.
I think that you may be reading this a bit incorrectly.
The return of asylum seekers, who have had their claims rejected, to their country of origin has never really been an issue. One of the main tests is if you cannot return someone to their country of origin because they would be in some danger, then that typical results in a successful asylum claim.
I think the main "leave ECHR" crowd want something entirely different, and that is to not accept ANY asylum claims from refugees (from certain ethnic backgrounds or countries?)
The above from Von der Leyen still respects the asylum claims as legal, but it is written (perhaps deliberately) in a way which implies asylum seekers will be refused asylum (which is not the aim of the narrative), and often interpreted that way by those who would see an end to "illegals" (when the actual word is asylum seeker). The key part of the script, and the part which confirms to me that I think some people might be reading it wrong is Von der Leyen's commitment to follow International Law.
ey_tony
Established Member
At the end of the day, you either have the appetite for finding a solution to problems or issues or you don't. Sitting there simply saying it can't be done is apathetic and dismissive and disrespectful of anyone who looks at it from the perspective that all problems have solutions, is an absolute nonsensical attitude!Because you are not answering the question that was put to you. You have claimed that we can withdraw from the ECHR, it's been pointed out it's intertwined with the GFA and you've not explained how that can be overcome.
Happy to answer. While I'm not an expert on the GFA I know it was very difficult to get to a point of agreement in the first place. If you then lay on top of that the complexities that arise as a result of us leaving the EU and how long it took to arrive at where we are now I think we need to take care to be certain we don't create another distraction by spending ages looking for something that will not ultimately be agreed.
I do know from direct experience that the situation in Northern Ireland while perhaps not fragile is not rock solid.
I've not said it's impossible - I'm highly sceptical though. Some seem to see leaving the ECHR as the answer to all our problems - I doubt it is.
I did but I accept the result and think we need to move on. That applies just as much as those who voted leave and now feel it's not the right sort of Brexit etc etc. I'll wager you voted Leave based on your comments which suggest a view that the EU just needs to fall in line and hand over the "oven ready deal" we were promised by Boris(By the way - whatever happened to the £350m a week?).
Perhaps it was a bit arrogant to think that the EU would just fold?
There you go again with an unsubstantiated sweeping statement. What great cards did we hold that were played badly? We already had a privileged position in the club and wanted an even better one when we left.
I agree. It's the "what needs to be done" that we perhaps disagree on. I'm more in the camp of move forward from where we are now rather than reopen the wounds that have held us back. I hope the less adversarial approach being suggested by the current government works better than the one we've seen since the referendum result. For the avoidance of doubt that's not a suggestion we should rejoin!
I'm out of this discussion as the balance of my posting is veering too much towards the general topics rather than woodworking which is after all what unites us!
No one seems to have the answer as to why we in the UK have a need for the ECHR?
So far all they can come up with is obstacles as to why we have got to have it and can't change things.
I suspect the majority of those in favour of retaining the ECHR's veto or we must have it are the same people who voted Remain in the Brexit referendum. Why else would any rational person want the ECHR's veto? They would look at finding solutions to any issues raised by the GFA etc unless they have a preferred agenda.
It doesn't make sense to want the ECHR to oversee our decisions unless they don't trust the British judiciary.
It's the same with the Brexit negotiations. I've been in business my whole and it was obvious to anyone with half a brain what was happening on the negotiation front.
Sorry but I have little time to argue with the fait accompli brigade. They throw down their weapons at the first sign of a skirmish....thank goodness the British people didn't have that mindset during WW2 or the outcome could have been very different.
Economically it needs a re-negotiation of trading terms with the EU. There is a huge trading deficit in favour of the EU due to them accessing our markets...that needs reviewing and their access re-negotiated with more favourable terms otherwise the EU will continue to milk our markets for their own ends and give us very little in return much as it has been doing.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/2023-0055-Response-from-Home-Office.pdf
Quote:
"The Home Office has no authority to intervene in operational policing matters"
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Had a look at the vid. Obvious right wing **** stirring from an id iot. No wonder he wants to keep his private life private!
More to the point is this:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-starmer-beliefs-attorney-general-rule-of-law
It explains a lot.
He surprised me by dumping the Rwanda nonsense so quickly - he's never shown any particularly humanitarian inclinations towards immigrants. Or anybody for that matter. The explanation is his commitment to the rule of law; he knew it was illegal.
Would also seem like the right and proper thing from a humanitarian point of view.
But when it comes to arms sales to the Israeli psychopaths on the genocide path, he sees it as a matter of contracts and can't make a simple moral judgment off his own bat.
The opposite with all his various pledges, loyalties and other promises; they aren't legal obligations. Hence all shrugged off without batting an eye lid - quite literally; that stoney faced stare when he's dodging questions! Not even illegal to lie his way into the leadership from the start!
Something quite neuro-diverse about him, OCD, or whatever the current term is.
It fits in with his obsequiousness towards the oligarchs, which does not bode well.
Last edited:
RobinBHM
Established Member
Yes that was the only reason the police gave her an escort……It can’t have had anything to do with the terrorist attack on Taylor Swift concert in Austria just a few days earlier.
Terry - Somerset
Established Member
Complete nonsense. UK private healthcare market is ~£11bn. The NHS spends £181bn pa.
I did not suggest insurance based healthcare was a preferred method of funding healthcare. There are issues around staffing and recruitment for whom the NHS provides training.
Kings Fund have done studies into the optimal way to fund public healthcare (UK model, insurance based, partially charged etc) and find that it actually makes little difference to the outcomes.
Improved employee rights generally increases costs - a balance needs to be struck between business and employee needs. That a Tory leadership candidate believes employee rights should be reduced is an entirely legitimate view - even if you don't agree.
UK GDP per capita is below Germany but above France, Italy and Spain - our most obvious European comparators. Over what period are you claiming poor GDP performance - there is a tendency to be selective about the data and period selected.
I don't remotely understand how Brexit inflates the % - the percentage of GDP is a very clear measure of the proportion of the economy devoted to healthcare.
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
Never ceases to amaze me how pretty much every Brexit supporter knows that they could have negotiated better terms for the UK than all of their fellow sunlit uplands chasers. Maybe we should have a system whereby you could all form a queue and have a crack at changing the fabric of cold hard reality.
There are a couple of false premises in your second sentence.
The implication that the ECHR is an "interference" is a false premise.
The Council of Europe (not to be confused with the European Union) was the body that came together shortly after WWII, with the UK being an active and central member, with three key aims of promoting democracy across Europe; protecting Human Rights and protecting the Rule of Law. The ECHR Convention was signed in 1950 and predates the EU by decades
The bit about "overseen by the ECHR" is also, in part, a false premise - particularly when taking into account the UK Human Rights Act and the Sovereign Courts structure that we possess and the Judgements that have been taken in the UK that somehow have been falsely reported as "ECHR meddling". Such as Supreme Court unanimously declaring that Rwanda did not meet requirements of UK Domestic Law... somehow got twisted into "ECHR meddling".
Quite simply, the UK HRA enshrines most of the ECHR in UK Law. But not all. The "oversee" implication is also muddled when you consider that the UK was actively involved in devising and pushing for the ECHR in the first place and, of course, then adopted the legislation that the UK itself, had proposed and drafted and agreed with partners. Allied to the fact that the ECHR is not a "foreign" court, (as is often portrayed in deliberate misinformation) correctly named it is an "International Court". The fact that the HQ is not in the UK is irrelevant. However, it is convenient for weasels deliberately attempting to recruit the dull to call it "foreign", instead of its proper label.
To fundamental answer your first question, you probably won't like the answer. It is imperative that the UK is being seen to be upholding International Law and not seen to be abandoning it. If you cannot see why this is vitally important, for the Security of the UK, both Nationally and Internationally, and for the security of the UK Economy, and it's underlying and extended International Treaties, to be seen to be upholding International Law, then you are not really in a credible position to be questioning about why we need International Laws that can be enforced at the State Level.
That decision would lie solely with the NI electorate. Not anyone else in the UK. Westminster cannot just invent and impose a referendum that NI citizens do not want.
Paddy Roxburgh
Established Member
This may come as a surprise to you, but the Irish, especially northern republicans, absolutely do not trust the British judiciary
Wales and Scotland will love that
Agreed that I don't agree that reducing worker rights is good - I only mentioned it because it was an example that you mentioned that the Tories had done, implying it was a positive thing, that is possibly going to be retrograded under Tory in future...
The vast majority of financial institutions all conclude, via research and such, that the UK Economy has been hit to the tune of around 4% due to Brexit. According to a variety of sources, GDP per capita increase over the past 5-8 years has not risen quite as much as the other G7. That's the data I'm using.
If we consider that the NHS "costs" are fixed at "X" in any year, and then consider that GDP per capita has fallen (r not risen as much as it should/could have) then GDP is less than ideal. Fixed cost X into GDP - if GDP is less, then the % of GDP that is spent on the NHS goes up, even when the NHS costs remain fixed.
That's what I meant when I said poor performance of UK GDP per Capita (as per publicly available graphs - allied to Brexit- imposed reduction of GDP) has increased the % of GDP that we spend on NHS.
It’s a well know fact that bolding or capitalising the word ‘fact’ on the internet usually indicates it isn’t.
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2003
- Messages
- 7,990
- Reaction score
- 1,399
To be specific, a border poll would only be called by the NI SoS if it appears likely that there will be a majority in favour of a UI from the NI electorate. It will involve all the electorate on the island of Ireland. The GFA referendum was a North and South vote. And yep, London can't impose anything.
As for this:
I can. I've also been a director of a company which chose not to invest in tax avoidance. Tax loopholes tend to be exploitable only by those with deep enough pockets to do so. I don't believe this is a force for good, so I'd rather not do it. Obviously not everyone thinks the same way...
LOL, I hadn't heard that one before, probably the same as "trust me" or "honestly"... (although it might be also be true to say that distrusting someone who uses "fact" would indicate more about the reader than the writer?)
Anyway, back to the topic:
Honestly, you gotta trust me on this - Home Office have no powers to instruct Police on Operational matters. fact.
And if you don't trust me, just look it up for yourselves:
Google "Home Office power over police UK", or "Does the government control the police UK".
Answers will clearly show that police operations are independent of government and that the home office has no power over police operations...
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
That was my (admittedly layman's) understanding of the meat of the GFA: no physical borders (so from the practical POV of those who want a united Ireland, it [almost] is one country), but no chance for a united Ireland until the majority in NI are for it (so - at least at the time of negotiations - zero chance of it happening from the POV of those who do not want a united Ireland).
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
That's the big bonus of being in EU. Disputes between neighbours (UK , Ireland, divided NoI) suddenly become less meaningful when they are all under the jurisdiction of bigger entity, but on equal terms and a lot of benefits.
Orange marches could just become quaint cultural relics with everybody joining in the fun! Or would that be out of the question?
Brexit was the most stupid thing the tories could possibly have done.
Are there other parts of the EU where differences are settled in a similar fashion?
- Status
