Keir Starmer

[woodieallen]

For the avoidance of doubt, the PM or Home Sec, or anybody else in the Home Office or government have NO POWER to instruct Police on Operational Matters.
The choice to provide a police escort was entirely a Police Operations decision, and most likely precipitated by actual known threat targeting overseas.

Not totally accurate in any aspect.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Fair point - I hadn't realised it's topped £100k in value. The last figures I saw were just a few thousand.

It's only totted up to that by adding the past 4 years up. Not since entering govt.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

She used the term 'migrant' so that's what I used, but she means 'asylum seeker'. She referred to 'third country migrants'. I avoided using the term 'asylum seekers, to avoid winding up the factions on here who say they're not 'asylum seekers', they're 'illegal immigrants/illegals/dingy divers and other epithets.

But here goes, so it's clear what she said:

Quote:

The European Commission has signalled a willingness to offshore migration procedures, echoing growing calls from member states.

Ursula von der Leyen has offered her strongest endorsement yet to the controversial project of establishing so-called "return hubs" outside the European Union territory to transfer asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected. The idea was reflected in a letter the European Commission president sent to EU leaders ahead of a two-day summit in Brussels where migration is set to dominate talks.

The seven-page letter, shared with the media on Monday evening, outlines several proposals to curb the number of asylum applications, which reached 1,140,000 claims across the bloc last year, and counter irregular border crossings and human smuggling. It signals a strong shift to the right, in line with the direction of Europe's migration debate.

Among the proposals is an explicit call for action to develop "innovative ways," a euphemism often associated with offshoring asylum procedures, as Italy has done with Albania, where Giorgia Meloni's hard-right government has built two centres to transfer male migrants rescued in high waters by Italian authorities. Von der Leyen also pushes for designating "safe third countries" at the EU level to avoid disagreements between member states and speed up the rate of deportations, which continues to hover between 20% and 30% with no major change.

This sluggish rate has put migration firmly back on the political table, despite the bloc having recently completed a hard-fought reform. Last week, a group of 17 European countries sent a document to the Commission demanding a "paradigm shift" on deportations where governments "must be empowered." "People without the right to stay must be held accountable. A new legal basis must clearly define their obligations and duties," the 17 countries said. "Non-cooperation must have consequences and be sanctioned."

In her letter, von der Leyen appears to respond directly to the document as she promises to table a law "that would define clear obligations of cooperation for the returnee, and effectively streamline the process of returns," with a focus on digitalisation and mutual recognition of the decisions issued by member states.

The president supports two key demands from the 17-strong group. First, new rules to detain and expel those considered a threat to public order and security. Second, using visa and trade policies as leverage to convince non-EU countries to accept their citizens after their asylum applications are turned down. (This lack of cooperation has been credited as one of the main factors behind the low return rate.)

"The EU's migration policy can only be sustainable if those who do not have the right to stay in the EU are effectively returned," von der Leyen writes.

Other ideas floated by the president are the signing of more EU-funded deals with neighbouring countries (as she has done with Tunisia and Egypt), stricter rules to crack down on human trafficking, a beefed-up response against hybrid attacks and instrumentalisation, and more humanitarian aid for war-torn countries in the Middle East.

"These controversial proposals seek to dismantle the core tenet of international protection: that people under a jurisdiction have a right to seek asylum in that jurisdiction and have that claim fairly examined," a coalition of 90 organisations said in July.

Von der Leyen's letter was signed the same day the European Commission expressed disapproval about Poland's announced plan to introduce a "temporary territorial suspension of the right to asylum" and comes amidst a charged political atmosphere where governments show increasing boldness in their attempts to curb migration flows.

End quote.

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/...orses-return-hubs-for-rejected-asylum-seekers

https://www.euronews.com/video/2024...orses-return-hubs-for-rejected-asylum-seekers

She also said:

'Von der Leyen also stresses that any projects the bloc takes forward should respect "EU principles and values, obligations under international law and the protection of fundamental rights" and ensure "sustainable and fair solutions" for migrants, even if NGOs have warned offshoring migration is inherently problematic'.

It's not clear which countries the "return hubs" outside the European Union territory to transfer asylum seekers whose applications have been rejected are to be. Rwanda maybe?

And I'm not sure how she hopes to achieve her aims and still be compatible with the ECHR.

Meanwhile, in the UK freebiegate/frockgate/Swittgate' and the impending budget have pushed the asylum seeker/illegal immigrant whatever, off the front page for now, but the clock is ticking, and the longer that Labour's inactivity on this matter continues, the less excuse they'll have for prevarication and inaction.

Or so it seems to me.

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]

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!

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!

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.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

Not totally accurate in any aspect.

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]

Yes, it’s homophobic.

It is a conspiracy theory spread by the truly horrible Isabel Oakshott saying “there is an open secret about Starmers family life”

It rather shows the maturity level of Reform voters.

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.

 

[RobinBHM]

Yes, you give the PM some free tickets to your concert and in exchange you get a police escort.

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]

Isn't it a well known fact that the NHS has been largely dismantled?

Complete nonsense. UK private healthcare market is ~£11bn. The NHS spends £181bn pa.

That insurance based healthcare that you're suggesting is already part in place in the UK and is a significant growth industry - which is helping to dismantle the NHS as the Private Providers poach the trained staff and charge the NHS more for the privilege.

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.

You may well talk about employee legislation, but that is something which the new govt is set to improve. Whilst in the background one of the main contenders of the Tory leadership has actively platformed that employee legislation needs to be reduced (maternity/paternity rights)

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.

You may well also talk about spending % of GDP, but we explicitly understand that our poor GDP performance (due in the most part to Brexit (fact)) artificially inflates the spending %.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

First of all why do you think we need the ECHR? Do you believe that the British judiciary can't be trusted?
The USA and many other developed countries manage to protect their own citizen's rights without interference from the ECHR in their legal system so why do you think the UK needs to be overseen by the ECHR?

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.

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

How about giving the people a referendum on unification with Ireland to become one, if you cut an apple in half you still have an apple but in two parts which is what Ireland currently is and if we can give some islands back then why not accept Ireland is Ireland and not Britain. In fact why not just have a big sort out and give back everything we have conquered during the empire years and put that part of our history to bed once and for all.

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]

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.

M

This may come as a surprise to you, but the Irish, especially northern republicans, absolutely do not trust the British judiciary

 

[paulrbarnard]

How about giving the people a referendum on unification with Ireland to become one, if you cut an apple in half you still have an apple but in two parts which is what Ireland currently is and if we can give some islands back then why not accept Ireland is Ireland and not Britain. In fact why not just have a big sort out and give back everything we have conquered during the empire years and put that part of our history to bed once and for all.

Wales and Scotland will love that

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

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.

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.

 

[paulrbarnard]

It is a fact that we have true independence between Government(executive), Parliament(legislature), Police(enforcement) and Judiciary in the UK.

The UK government have NO POWER to direct the UK Police to do anything at all. FACT.

It’s a well know fact that bolding or capitalising the word ‘fact’ on the internet usually indicates it isn’t.

 

[Noel]

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.

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:

How about giving the people a referendum on unification with Ireland to become one, if you cut an apple in half you still have an apple but in two parts which is what Ireland currently is and if we can give some islands back then why not accept Ireland is Ireland and not Britain. In fact why not just have a big sort out and give back everything we have conquered during the empire years and put that part of our history to bed once and for all.

 

[jetsetwilly]

Sorry have startled you with that revelation but it's a mistake to think that boards make decisions that simply maximise the return for their shareholder. There are plenty of examples such as not taking the maximum support during COVID or making charitable donations which recognise doing the right thing builds long term value.

No directors were voted out and the major shareholders who were represented on the board fully bought into the decision.

I can't dignify that nonsense with a meaningful response,

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...

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

It’s a well know fact that bolding or capitalising the word ‘fact’ on the internet usually indicates it isn’t.

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]

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.

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]

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).

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?