Keir Starmer

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I don't trust anyone particularly left wingers who want to retain the ECHR as it's ham-stringing our legal system and society.
This isn't some third world dictatorship. Our legal system has been the example to set for most advanced nations of the world and anyone who isn't a fan of a Federal Europe can see where the problem lies.
ECHR has largely drafted by Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe a Conservative MP

ECHR has nothing to do with the EU.

By the way, we can’t leave the ECHR as it would break the Good Friday Agreement.

The Brexit Withdrawal Agreement is contingent on the GFA.

I hope didn’t vote for Brexit as that stops us leaving ECHR…..oops
 
Think that majority of people are not classed as wealthy. But the majority of people, @63%, own outright or with a mortgage. Sort of defeats the idea that the selling of houses is only taken on by the rich. And no, it's not personal opinion.

The data on accommodation (2021) ownership and renting can be broken down further to show that:

32.8% of households (8.1 million) owned the accommodation they lived in outright, an increase from 30.8% (7.2 million) in 2011

29.7% (7.4 million) owned their accommodation with a mortgage or loan or shared ownership, which is a smaller proportion than in 2011 (33.5%, 7.8 million)

20.3% (5.0 million) rented their accommodation privately, up from 16.7% (3.9 million) in 2011

17.1% (4.2 million) were in the social rented sector, for example through a local council or housing association; this is a smaller proportion than in 2011 (17.6%, 4.1 million)

Also I noted that,

Within England, London had the lowest level of overall home ownership (46.8%) of any English region. London also had the highest proportion of households that rented privately (30.0%) or in the social rented sector (23.1%).

The above are extracted from the ONS, (Office of National Statistics) at
www.ons.gov.uk
(people, population and community section).
 
Interesting development:

Snip:

8-<

Poland suspends right to asylum in challenge to EU:

Poland will temporarily ban migrants from claiming asylum on its territory, Donald Tusk, the prime minister, said on Saturday. Announcing the move, Mr Tusk said that Warsaw “must regain 100 per cent control over who comes to Poland”. The Civic Platform party leader said the suspension of the right to claim asylum was needed with Russia-allied Belarus funnelling migrants to the Polish border as part of a hybrid war to destabilise the EU.

But Mr Tusk, who was European Council president during the Brexit negotiations, also framed the move as part of wider efforts to toughen Poland’s migration policies. “If someone wants to come to Poland, they must respect Polish standards, Polish customs, they must want to integrate,” Mr Tusk said. He said neighbouring Germany, a popular destination for migrants, had “negative experiences” with immigration after ignoring integration. “If there are too many people of other cultures, then the native culture feels threatened,” the Polish prime minister added.

Countries are obliged under international law to offer asylum. To prevent legal challenges, Mr Tusk said he would “demand” the EU recognise the decision, setting up a potential clash with Brussels.

“I will demand this, I will demand recognition in Europe for this decision,” he said. “This is because we know very well how it is used by [Belarusian president Alexander] Lukashenko, [Russian president Vladimir] Putin... by people smugglers, people traffickers, how this right to asylum is used exactly against the essence of the right to asylum.”

EU leaders will meet this week in the Belgian capital for a summit set to be dominated by migration and calls to make deportations of illegal migrants faster and easier. Earlier this year, the bloc adopted a sweeping reform of its asylum policies, hardening border procedures and compelling countries to take in refugees from under-pressure states or pay €20,000 for each they reject in a package due to come into effect in June 2026. Denmark last week became the seventh EU member state to tighten its border controls. Others include France, Italy, Austria and Sweden.

The UK’s position on asylum has changed markedly since Labour took office in July. The government vowed to scrap the Rwanda removals policy a few days after the election and has introduced a new Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill which is making its way through Parliament.

Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, has effectively cancelled the previous government’s Illegal Migration Act, which automatically denied asylum to anyone who arrived in the country illegally. Ms Cooper has said the Home Office will use fast-track decisions and returns agreements to clear the asylum backlog.

Both candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party are more hawkish on asylum policies than the Government.

Robert Jenrick has described the UK’s asylum grant rate as “offensively high” and claimed immigration judges are insufficiently scrupulous when assessing claims. The Conservative leadership candidate and former immigration minister has pledged to cut off foreign aid to countries that do not accept the return of failed asylum claimants from their country.

8-<

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...1&cvid=661ce11b05cb4484a5c034fc84850a34&ei=25

I see the term 'Returns Agreements' attributed to Yvette Cooper again.

Huh?

Do we have such agreements with Afghanistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Iraq and Iran from whence many seeking asylum come?
 
Unmployment has fallen? Only because of the way it's classified. We've 9,000,000 economically inactive. 380,000 Asians on benefits. Per capita GDP has stagnated for 20 years.
GDP has stagnated due to legislative changes which have improved employee rights - eg: minimum wage, paternity leave, blacklists regulation, equality act, agency worker regulations, parental leave, flexible working etc etc etc.

These are both Labour and Tory initiatives - so no political slant. We simply have a choice - better employment conditions or GDP growth.

Unlike the current government who believe both improved employee rights and growth can be delivered from a single piece of legislation, I believe that (with possibly a vey few exceptions) they are mutually exclusive.

That improved rights should take priority over GDP growth is a choice - and there are different, sometimes polarised, views.
 
Indeed not. Have you not noticed the complete absence of SNSM [Société Nationale de Sauvetage en Mer] ? Thet couldn't care a toss about boat people.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make then? Are you unhappy that French boats are or are not picking up migrants and delivering them onto UK shores?
 
So, how would you maintain the GFA if the UK left the ECHR?
Careful Noel, you don't want to introduce any of that factually accurate stuff about ROI/NI here. The anti-EU/ECHR/woke* brigade seem to fall into two camps on this one: those that do not understand the issue, and those that do not care.

*delete as appropriate
 
I saw a nice two bed bungalow with a decent garden sell for £200,000 - my father built it and sold in 1960 for ..................................... £999.
Per UK inflation since 1960, that £999 would be nearly £20k in today's money. Still tiny compared to £200k though, so it does illustrate the huge inflation in house prices over the decades.
 
These are both Labour and Tory initiatives - so no political slant. We simply have a choice - better employment conditions or GDP growth.
I’m sorry but this is completely wrong.

There are many reasons for stagnant growth, you are making a very false impression it’s binary choice between workers rights and GDP
 
I don't trust anyone particularly left wingers who want to retain the ECHR as it's ham-stringing our legal system and society.
This isn't some third world dictatorship. Our legal system has been the example to set for most advanced nations of the world and anyone who isn't a fan of a Federal Europe can see where the problem lies.
It has been, but that's what worries me about the past few years. The lunatics that have taken over the Conservative Party have been pretty vocal about their desire to ride roughshod over protections and rights for individuals. So, right now I'd far more trust a collection of ECHR judges (even if foreign) than the likes of Jenrick, Patel, Braverman, or Badenoch.

As I noted earlier in this thread; people who are happy to apply cruel policies to those weaker than themselves will have no hesitation to use those policies on you if and when it suited them.
 
Have they actually said they are going to do it or has a politician floated the idea?
Just someone floating it, likely under pressure due to the rise of the AfD. No actual plans as far as I'm aware. The oxymoron that is James Cleverly was trying to talk it up, so that likely means it'll never happen (given his magnificent success rate).
 
I don’t trust the politicians who are so keen on leaving it.

Right wing Tories and Reform want to remove protections for U.K. citizens whilst putting themselves above the law.

The antics of Conservative Party since 2019 is a good indicator.
Given their performance over the first 100 days, it is difficult to have any greater trust in our current government.

Charitably it could be due to 14 years in opposition, no real experience of government, and performance will improve. I am not so charitable - their campaigning and government are characteristic of that which rates politicians less trustworthy than 2nd hand car salesmen.

BTW I am less than convinced by those who wish to exit the ECHR - whether issues relate to its fundamental deficiencies or the relationship of the UK to it is debatable.
 
Just someone floating it, likely under pressure due to the rise of the AfD. No actual plans as far as I'm aware. The oxymoron that is James Cleverly was trying to talk it up, so that likely means it'll never happen (given his magnificent success rate).

I thought so and was just giving Spectric the opportunity to be accurate rather than presenting less than half the facts 😉
 
Here is a question, Germany is not only in the EU but also the ECHR but seems to have no issues sending the unwanted to Rwanda so why did we find it so hard ?

There are no rules/regulations/plans to do this. Joachim Stamp (migration rep) suggested using Rwanda as a processing option (unlike UK the suggestion proposed that successful applicants would return to Germany etc). It's just something that has been suggested. Enhanced border controls through Schengen and Dublin regulations have been in force for a year or so.

Edit- @sploo & @Blackswanwood beat me to it.
 
I thought so and was just giving Spectric the opportunity to be accurate rather than presenting less than half the facts 😉
I do think it's important to be as accurate as possible. Google/Duck/semethingelse is your friend.
 
... More specifically: politicians and government officials [uncivil servants].
.....
Dear oh dear that sounds awful!
Didn't you tell them that you were an Englishman and not used to that sort of thing? :rolleyes:
Stiff upper-lip and all that - sing "Rule Brittania" under your breath?
I hope it wasn't too upsetting.
If these johnny foreigners came here of course our own officials and civil servants would stop at nothing to make their experience as pleasant as possible. Nothing too much trouble for the British serving classes! That's what attracts all these dinghy wallahs.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top