Which other countries? I’ve heard that Poland and Hungary haven’t been too keen on immigrations and wish to stem to flow but I wonder if they have broken the rules of the convention and protocol and if there is a penalty.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
According to the UNHCR (United Nations Commission for Refugees) it is a legal obligation. While there wouldn't be fine as such, a country can face sanctions for breaking international law e.g economic, trade, cultural or diplomatic restrictions. I don't know whether it would come to that if the UK simply refused to take any more asylum seekers. However it would undoubtedly meet with disapproval from many countries and it would harm the international standing of the UK (how trustworthy is a country that makes agreements and then breaks them?).
It's much more likely that the UK will continue to do what it has been doing for years, paying lip service to the 1951 Convention and ECHR but stretching the boundaries of what is acceptable under them. The UNHCR has already criticised the UK for some of the things it does when dealing with asylum seekers but that generally gets ignored.
Probably Denmark, Italy to that list and a few more.
There’s lots of EU countries bypassing the convention as it’s becoming unsustainable the amount of people looking for asylum.
Migration back on top of EU agenda but same old divisions remain
Member states continue to be bitterly divided over the question of relocation of asylum-seekers, despite years of discussions. #EuropeDecoded
www.euronews.com
Last edited:
Ukrainians and Afghans are a bit different under this scheme given that Ukrainians come with accommodation ready for them. The problem seems to have been based on cultural clashes and people not realising it's a big commitment to have someone with different culture and language living with you
Poland is a bit of a unique situation given that the refugee problem appears to have been caused by political games from Belarus/Russia. There were accusations that Belarus was taking payments and promising safe heavens only to push the asylum seekers out the moment they get there as a way to overwhelm the country
There's been a lot of criticism for how it's being handled either way as it seems that the treatment of refugees on the borders between the countries has been very rough. The difference between UK and generally the majority of other countries appears to be that our legal system is more freely accessible and we are able to hold the government to account for their actions. People may say that's a bad thing and call lawyers a bunch of lefties, but we also benefit a whole lot from having such a system for our own rights
Belarus–European Union border crisis - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In limbo: the refugees left on the Belarusian-Polish border – a photo essay
Offered a new route into Europe by the Lukashenko regime, thousands of asylum seekers are now stranded on the EU’s frontier
www.theguardian.com
There’s lots of Ukrainians that have no accommodation they were put up in halls of residence ,hotels and sports halls they then had to vacate once the students needed the rooms back, most of them have been moved to holiday villages.Ukrainians and Afghans are a bit different under this scheme given that Ukrainians come with accommodation ready for them. The problem seems to have been based on cultural clashes and people not realising it's a big commitment to have someone with different culture and language living with you
Poland is a bit of a unique situation given that the refugee problem appears to have been caused by political games from Belarus/Russia. There were accusations that Belarus was taking payments and promising safe heavens only to push the asylum seekers out the moment they get there as a way to overwhelm the country
There's been a lot of criticism for how it's being handled either way as it seems that the treatment of refugees on the borders between the countries has been very rough. The difference between UK and generally the majority of other countries appears to be that our legal system is more freely accessible and we are able to hold the government to account for their actions. People may say that's a bad thing and call lawyers a bunch of lefties, but we also benefit a whole lot from having such a system for our own rights
Belarus–European Union border crisis - Wikipedia
In limbo: the refugees left on the Belarusian-Polish border – a photo essay
Offered a new route into Europe by the Lukashenko regime, thousands of asylum seekers are now stranded on the EU’s frontier
I'm not sure what 'bypassing' the Convention means but it's true that many countries are adopting policies that are against the spirit of the Convention (while still saying that they support it). Australia was the 'role model' for this when in 2013 they began sending all asylum seekers to Papau New Guinea and Nauru in much the same way as the UK is proposing with Rwanda. Other countries adopting controversial policies include the EU countries (Hungary under Victor Orban made it a criminal offence to help an asylum seeker) and of course the US under Trump (at least 3,900 children being separated from their parents).
It means getting round it!
(from Wikipedia)
The only 'enforcement' is really the domestic legal systems. The fact that the UK government hasn't outright ignored rulings would suggest that they don't feel there's overwhelming support for their policies. The fact that they paused Rwanda flights during the leadership race would suggest the same
There has been talk of the government using an ouster clause which would mean the courts could not interfere:
Sunak mulls ‘plans to ban Channel migrants from appealing deportation’
Former Tory minister warns plans would spark ‘mother of all rows’ and risk ‘difficult clash’ with courts
I thought it was the ECHR stepped in and that’s why they were stopped?(from Wikipedia)
The only 'enforcement' is really the domestic legal systems. The fact that the UK government hasn't outright ignored rulings would suggest that they don't feel there's overwhelming support for their policies. The fact that they paused Rwanda flights during the leadership race would suggest the same
There has been talk of the government using an ouster clause which would mean the courts could not interfere:
Sunak mulls ‘plans to ban Channel migrants from appealing deportation’
Former Tory minister warns plans would spark ‘mother of all rows’ and risk ‘difficult clash’ with courtswww.independent.co.uk
There’s no easy answer ,doing away with the convention may safeguard citizens but it also puts those most vulnerable at risk ,that’s the price being paid for those exploiting the system , and the shabby government.
The ECHR thing, from memory, was that the government couldn’t act until the judicial review. Don’t remember the full thing but they paused it specifically when the leadership race was announced which was a very odd move
They could have ignored the ECHR, and there was concern that it would happen, but they didn’t. Which again shows that that government doesn’t seem to think there’s a lot of support for what is being done
Though I think the ECHR could have become a bit more involved afterwards if that was to happen. There’s cases of it before but I don’t remember the specifics of it
Think they stepped in at the 11th hr , I thought that was why they wanted shot of them.
Rwanda asylum flight cancelled after 11th-hour ECHR intervention
First flight to Rwanda grounded after lawyers make successful emergency application
www.theguardian.com
Think they stepped in at the 11th hr , I thought that was why they wanted shot of them.
Rwanda asylum flight cancelled after 11th-hour ECHR intervention
First flight to Rwanda grounded after lawyers make successful emergency application
Rwanda migrant flights 'on hold' until Tory leadership contest finishes
Rwanda migrant flights are set to be paused until a new Prime Minister has been elected after the Tory leadership contest.
www.lbc.co.uk
Then you got these headlines, hard to know who to believe?This specifically
Rwanda migrant flights 'on hold' until Tory leadership contest finishes
Rwanda migrant flights are set to be paused until a new Prime Minister has been elected after the Tory leadership contest.
Can Sunak win over voters – and his party – with overhaul of asylum system?
Immigration and asylum now poll third among issues facing the UK, and PM knows he needs to rise to the challenge
www.theguardian.com
Judges from the EHCR ruled that removal of most of the people due to leave on the first flight should be prohibited. They did not rule that the overall policy was unlawful. The government suspended implementation of the policy at that point. In December the UK High Court ruled that the policy is lawful but also allowed a limited appeal to the Court of Appeal. I believe the full ECHR is expected to rule on the policy. the government position is that it does not expect the EHCR to overrule the UK High Court's decision and that it is hoped that the EHCR will rule sometime this year. Obviously they would like to be able to start Rwanda flights before the next election. If the EHCR was to rule against the UK thee would be calls for the UK to leave the EHCR which would be a huge issue and probably split the Tory party even further than it already is.
This country is a shithole now its been invaded by all of these backwards countries criminals. no chance of gaining control of it now. More attacks and murders of innocent British citizens, turf wars between young men who can't speak english. Precious resources wasted on illegal citizens who are laughing at British tax payers. SMH.
Plus its in breach of the GFA don’t think the UK can afford to do without the US , Biden won’t hear of scrapping it, even though it does need changed as its contributing to the stalemate in NI , we’ve moved on in 25 yrs it’s a hindrance ,more than a help.You could count on one hand how many cases the ECHR actually get involved with.
---
Last edited:
Many of the dingy immigrants are from Albania and going to join organised crime gangs. I work with lots of immigrants in healthcare , they have taken the proper way , applied and got a visa in a workforce that is desperately short staffed. They work tremendously hard and pay their taxes , the illegal dingy ones are taking the piss out of our system. It's rewarding people over the ones who apply and come to work.
That’s because the UK is generally very good at following the ECHR - it’s why the Human Rights Act was actually implemented
I’m talking generally not just UK.
The problem for international courts like this is that they can only take the most serious of cases because they don’t have capacity due to funding
Also, because of state sovereignty and the whole thing of an international court being involved in domestic issues, it’s preferable for the issues to be dealt with domestically. I would guess that in the vast majority of cases that’s exactly what happens and why we don’t see ECHR involvement too