Brexit (Old)

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

What's wrong with the ECHR? Nothing to do with the EU (though you have to be a member to join the EU) and is specifically mentioned in the Good Friday Agreement. We have been a member since 1949 and are one of the founding members.

It's got the world 'European' in it which makes some see red for some reason.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

What's wrong with the ECHR? Nothing to do with the EU (though you have to be a member to join the EU) and is specifically mentioned in the Good Friday Agreement. We have been a member since 1949 and are one of the founding members.

Deportation of criminals on human rights grounds come to mind.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013...t-human-rights

You’ve unsurprisingly selected #1 from my list leaving us to assume that you can’t quarrel with my position on #2 #3.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Deportation of criminals on human rights grounds come to mind.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013...t-human-rights

You’ve unsurprisingly selected #1 from my list leaving us to assume that you can’t quarrel with my position on #2 #3.

I picked the ECHR as this is a good example of where nations cede sovereignty through international agreements outside of the EU. We have agreed for example to not allow trade in endangered species (CITES), not develop chemical weapons (CWC) or endanger the ozone layer (Montreal Protocol) Not mentioning the other points does not imply agreement with your points but I understand you position on the EU even though we disagree.

I guess from the link you posted, you were talking about the case of Abu Qatada whose extradition was blocked on the grounds of Article 3 (torture) and Article 6 (fair trial) He was subsequently deported to Jordan after Jordan signed an agreement to not use evidence gained through torture against him.

There is an inherent nature of human rights agreements such as ECHR or the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that they apply to all humans by their very nature without prejudice. To state human rights apply to some but not others suggest that some are human and not others.

[Dave42]

Sky News
‏
Verified account

@SkyNews
33s
33 seconds ago


More
"Amber Rudd is going back into cabinet" - @AmberRuddHR MP has been appointed work and pensions secretary, according to Sky sources.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I picked the ECHR as this is a good example of where nations cede sovereignty through international agreements outside of the EU.

Cede sovereignty is probably going a bit far with that example. We signed up to adhere to the convention and any rulings are over seen by the court for it.

The EHCR does not propose or impose law. But I take your point.

Another interesting example is OSPAR, another entity we will still be party to after Brexit.

They do propose propose decisions that member states may be expected to enact into law.

Most of the lauded environmental law that the Greens and so forth lay at the EU door, is in fact from OSPAR and not the EU. Another myth dispelled.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

I picked the ECHR as this is a good example of where nations cede sovereignty through international agreements outside of the EU. We have agreed for example to not allow trade in endangered species (CITES), not develop chemical weapons (CWC) or endanger the ozone layer (Montreal Protocol) Not mentioning the other points does not imply agreement with your points but I understand you position on the EU even though we disagree.

I guess from the link you posted, you were talking about the case of Abu Qatada whose extradition was blocked on the grounds of Article 3 (torture) and Article 6 (fair trial) He was subsequently deported to Jordan after Jordan signed an agreement to not use evidence gained through torture against him.

There is an inherent nature of human rights agreements such as ECHR or the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights that they apply to all humans by their very nature without prejudice. To state human rights apply to some but not others suggest that some are human and not others.

It's really very simple. A foreign, non-Eu student, comes to the UK on a student's visa and overstays. He (in this case) overstays his visa and the authorities seek to deport him as UK law allows.

Along comes the appeal to the ECHR who allows his appeal on the basis that he had entered into a meaningful personal relationship and his rights under the Convention thus trumped our immigration laws.

We are a civilised country and our own Human Rights act, stripped of reference to the ECHR will do nicely.

The ECHR allows cynical exploitation of illegal immigration, whether student or criminal.

Originally Posted by Dave42

Sky News
‏
Verified account

@SkyNews
33s
33 seconds ago


More
"Amber Rudd is going back into cabinet" - @AmberRuddHR MP has been appointed work and pensions secretary, according to Sky sources.

Paper thin majority at last election running the Dept for Universal Credit LOL, resigned her post as Home Secretary because of the Windrush scandal, sneaking back in Government because the unstable thicko PM is running out of qualified MPs to appoint to her Cabinet.

[denphone]

Stephen Barclay the new Brexit Secretary.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Another interesting example is OSPAR, another entity we will still be party to after Brexit.

They do propose propose decisions that member states may be expected to enact into law.

Most of the lauded environmental law that the Greens and so forth lay at the EU door, is in fact from OSPAR and not the EU. Another myth dispelled.

As you have researched this thoroughly and clearly dispelled this "myth", can you let us all know which of the following EU Directives on the Environment are not in fact EU ones but are really OSPAR?

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_...s#/Environment

Pollution and Waste

The Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community
Urban Waste Water Directive (Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water collection and treatment)
Packaging and packaging waste directive, 94/62/EC deals with the problems of packaging waste and the currently permitted heavy metal content in packaging
Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control; replaced by Directive 2008/1/EC (see below)
Landfill Directive, Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999
RoHS Directive 2002/95/EC
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive ("WEEE directive"), Directive 2002/96, revised in 2006, 2009 and 2012, currently Directive 2012/19/EU on waste electrical and electronic equipment
Battery directive (2006/66/EC in force from 6 September 2006), Directive 2006/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (Directive 2008/1/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2008 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control)
Waste framework directive (Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on waste)

Wildlife and nature conservation

Birds Directive (Council Directive 79/409/EEC)
Birds Directive (Council Directive 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild birds)
Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora)
Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Council Directive 2008/56/EC)

Environment - Other

Industrial Emissions Directive
Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy)
Floods directive
Strategic environmental assessment (Directive 2001/42/EC)
Large Combustion Plant Directive (Directive 2001/80/EC of 23 October 2001 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants)
Noise emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors (2000/14/EC − ″OND″)
Implementation of a Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading Directive, amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (Directive 2003/87/EC of 13 October 2003)
Freedom of access to information Directive, Directive 2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC
Environmental impact assessment (Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment)
2008/50/EG, air quality

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by denphone

Stephen Barclay the new Brexit Secretary.

I eagerly await his resignation .

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mick

Paper thin majority at last election running the Dept for Universal Credit LOL, resigned her post as Home Secretary because of the Windrush scandal, sneaking back in Government because the unstable thicko PM is running out of qualified MPs to appoint to her Cabinet.

Back in government as you say but she certainly has the poison chalice at the DWP with Universal credit for the next 5 years that is a guarantee but of course she probably won't be there for 5 years given that most of her predecessors have not lasted that long before her.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It's really very simple. A foreign, non-Eu student, comes to the UK on a student's visa and overstays. He (in this case) overstays his visa and the authorities seek to deport him as UK law allows.

Along comes the appeal to the ECHR who allows his appeal on the basis that he had entered into a meaningful personal relationship and his rights under the Convention thus trumped our immigration laws.

We are a civilised country and our own Human Rights act, stripped of reference to the ECHR will do nicely.

The ECHR allows cynical exploitation of illegal immigration, whether student or criminal

What do you basis this on? Curious ...

I came across this article which seems to contradict your statement:

Students are not settled migrants and do not have significant ECHR rights

High Court refuses judicial review of the decision of the Minister for Justice to issue two Mauritian nationals, who overstayed on their student visas, with deportation orders, on the grounds that they failed to raise substantial grounds as students are not settled migrants and do not enjoy significant rights pursuant to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Judicial review asylum and immigration two students from Mauritius arrived in the state on temporary student permissions - illegally overstayed challenging the deportation orders made against them - substantial grounds test whether there are substantial grounds for contending that the deportation order is contrary to article 8 rights - fundamentally misconceived argument - ECHR case law is clear that a person whose immigration status is precarious is not a settled migrant and does not enjoy significant rights under art. 8 of the ECHR - person who enjoys a purely temporary and transitory permission, such as for a limited period to pursue a course of study, is precisely the type of person in a precarious position that the Strasbourg court envisages - students are simply not settled migrants - a temporary student permission is precisely the sort of permission that precludes the acquisition of significant or perhaps any rights under art. 8 of the ECHR whether there are substantial grounds for contending that the Minister failed to weigh humanitarian considerations correctly or give reasons whether there are substantial grounds for contending that the decision is disproportionate in terms of the test in Heaney v. Ireland - no particular formula of words is required proportionality for proportionality to be engaged, the decision must be one which interferes with rights - illegally present in the State.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

I eagerly await his resignation .

We await your odds.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

What do you basis this on? Curious …

[SEPH]: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15171980

I came across this article which seems to contradict your statement:

Students are not settled migrants and do not have significant ECHR rights

[SEPH]: I wish that had applied in the case I referenced.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by denphone

Stephen Barclay the new Brexit Secretary.

Here he is getting ready for his first speech:



---------- Post added at 17:16 ---------- Previous post was at 17:10 ----------

But your link seems to conclude that the case was refused on the basis of UK and not ECHR law:

But that judgement was superseded by a decision of the upper tier of the tribunal.

That judgement at the upper tier , which allowed the man to stay, had nothing to do with the cat.

Lawyers for the Bolivian man told the senior judge in the upper tier that the Home Office had in fact ignored its own immigration rules on unmarried couples who had been together at least two years.

Those rules stated that an individual should not normally be deported if the relationship is clearly genuine and long-lasting .

The upper tribunal ruled in the Bolivian's favour - and said the Home Office's failure to follow its own rule was the key factor in the case, not the cat.