Freedom of Movement isn't as unrestricted as the right-wing media suggest (or at least, it doesn't have to be):
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/we-can-control-eu ... t-done-it/
The UK political thread (formerly independence thread)
-
- Paster of Muppets
- Posts: 1572
- Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:38 am
- Location: Leeds
- Contact:
- someone else
- Denim Demon
- Posts: 5530
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:33 pm
- Location: Chester, UK
- Contact:
Re: The UK political thread (formerly independence thread)
Quite - over 3 months and EU residents have to register where criminal records can be searched. We can do it on entry as well after regs were tightened up after the Paris attacks. We booted out nearly 4000 EU nationals last year. We had access to databases and a Europe wide arrest warrant system but won't have access as jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice was one of the 'red lines' of Brexit. Back to the old days of crims hanging out in the Costa Del Sol...
As with anything, laws and regs are just pieces of paper unless there is active enforcement - cuts to Border Agency, Courts etc don't help.
As with anything, laws and regs are just pieces of paper unless there is active enforcement - cuts to Border Agency, Courts etc don't help.
-
- Consort of the Beast
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:00 pm
- Location: Devon
Re: The UK political thread (formerly independence thread)
bloodofthekings wrote:Freedom of Movement isn't as unrestricted as the right-wing media suggest (or at least, it doesn't have to be):
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/we-can-control-eu ... t-done-it/
There is one section (article of the EU Human Rights Law signed away by Brown in the Lisbon Treaty that gives even grooming paedophiles the right to a family life and therefore not get deported.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roch ... -z0g3l7dqj
https://voiceofeurope.com/2019/01/groom ... portation/
What is the point of English courts trying to deport people when it results in these very expensive (to the taxpayer) scenarios?
- Metalchemyst
- Denim Demon
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 1:52 pm
- Location: Grtr Manchester
Re: The UK political thread (formerly independence thread)
Labour's next leader should not whinge about Brexit, not say and do unpatriotic things and adopt a sensible immigration policy. Then they would win back a lot of seats at the next election, although I think the Cons will still have a working majority after it.
DISTORTION JUNKIES SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH
- someone else
- Denim Demon
- Posts: 5530
- Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:33 pm
- Location: Chester, UK
- Contact:
Re: The UK political thread (formerly independence thread)
slayerslays wrote:bloodofthekings wrote:Freedom of Movement isn't as unrestricted as the right-wing media suggest (or at least, it doesn't have to be):
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/we-can-control-eu ... t-done-it/
There is one section (article of the EU Human Rights Law signed away by Brown in the Lisbon Treaty that gives even grooming paedophiles the right to a family life and therefore not get deported.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roch ... -z0g3l7dqj
https://voiceofeurope.com/2019/01/groom ... portation/
What is the point of English courts trying to deport people when it results in these very expensive (to the taxpayer) scenarios?
The European Convention on Human Rights is NOT the EU, it predates it by decades as it came in in 1953. We'll still be a signatory after Brexit
- Metalchemyst
- Denim Demon
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 1:52 pm
- Location: Grtr Manchester
Re: The UK political thread (formerly independence thread)
And it was incorporated into UK law in 2000 anyway. There's one section I know of that sounds a bit 1984, technically making it possible to limit the holding of opinions:someone else wrote:The European Convention on Human Rights is NOT the EU, it predates it by decades as it came in in 1953. We'll still be a signatory after Brexitslayerslays wrote:There is one section (article of the EU Human Rights Law signed away by Brown in the Lisbon Treaty that gives even grooming paedophiles the right to a family life and therefore not get deported.bloodofthekings wrote:Freedom of Movement isn't as unrestricted as the right-wing media suggest (or at least, it doesn't have to be):
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/we-can-control-eu ... t-done-it/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roch ... -z0g3l7dqj
https://voiceofeurope.com/2019/01/groom ... portation/
What is the point of English courts trying to deport people when it results in these very expensive (to the taxpayer) scenarios?
https://i.servimg.com/u/f45/19/71/28/23/freedo11.png
DISTORTION JUNKIES SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH
Re: The UK political thread (formerly independence thread)
Fun little thing (to add a little levity to this topic) - confused Welsh village folk were Friday arguing with the woman running the shop. The reason ? They weren't able to buy their Euromillions tickets...
Indoor 2005, 2006
BOA 2008, 2018, 2019
BOA 2008, 2018, 2019
Re: The UK political thread (formerly independence thread)
Metalchemyst wrote:And it was incorporated into UK law in 2000 anyway. There's one section I know of that sounds a bit 1984, technically making it possible to limit the holding of opinions:someone else wrote:The European Convention on Human Rights is NOT the EU, it predates it by decades as it came in in 1953. We'll still be a signatory after Brexitslayerslays wrote:There is one section (article of the EU Human Rights Law signed away by Brown in the Lisbon Treaty that gives even grooming paedophiles the right to a family life and therefore not get deported.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/roch ... -z0g3l7dqj
https://voiceofeurope.com/2019/01/groom ... portation/
What is the point of English courts trying to deport people when it results in these very expensive (to the taxpayer) scenarios?
https://i.servimg.com/u/f45/19/71/28/23/freedo11.png
Just because you are free to do something doesn't automatically mean you are free to do anything. The rule of thumb is so long as it doesn't hurt others. That is why every single right in the Convention is subject to restrictions and for good reasons with the exception of freedom from torture which is absolute. It means that even the right to life is not absolute because one can be lawfully killed. There's nothing 1984 about the article's restrictions. You should fear them being implemented no more than you should coppers going on patrols and shooting people at random and later claiming those were lawful killings.
The Convention was incorporated into British law for practical reasons too. Traditionally we didn't have rights in this country, we had liberties. Not the same thing.
So when an individual sued the state for a breach of - let's say - the right to privacy our courts struck out the case (no such right) which was then brought before the European Court of Human Rights which upheld that same claim. This was costly - damages, compensation, changing existing law to accommodate the court's verdict etc. Incorporating the Convention has prevented a lot of claims being unnecessarily brought before the ECoHR.
- Metalchemyst
- Denim Demon
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 1:52 pm
- Location: Grtr Manchester
Re: The UK political thread (formerly independence thread)
I think it's better to say that anything is allowed unless a specific law prohibits it, e.g. taking a new drug. History has already given us the main restrictions we need. If we want any more we can vote for them (in theory).eyesore wrote:Just because you are free to do something doesn't automatically mean you are free to do anything. The rule of thumb is so long as it doesn't hurt others. That is why every single right in the Convention is subject to restrictions and for good reasons with the exception of freedom from torture which is absolute. It means that even the right to life is not absolute because one can be lawfully killed. There's nothing 1984 about the article's restrictions. You should fear them being implemented no more than you should coppers going on patrols and shooting people at random and later claiming those were lawful killings.
The Convention was incorporated into British law for practical reasons too. Traditionally we didn't have rights in this country, we had liberties. Not the same thing.
So when an individual sued the state for a breach of - let's say - the right to privacy our courts struck out the case (no such right) which was then brought before the European Court of Human Rights which upheld that same claim. This was costly - damages, compensation, changing existing law to accommodate the court's verdict etc. Incorporating the Convention has prevented a lot of claims being unnecessarily brought before the ECoHR.
DISTORTION JUNKIES SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH
- Metalchemyst
- Denim Demon
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 1:52 pm
- Location: Grtr Manchester
Re: The UK political thread (formerly independence thread)
On second thoughts, I would have some fundamental rights like a right to life, to belong to a state, basic health care and freedom from torture. But even those should be alterable by referendum (not by politicians).
DISTORTION JUNKIES SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH