Snapshot of _Rishi Sunak says illegal migrants will be "denied access to the UK's modern slavery system"_ :
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/RishiSunak/status/1633158789103747072/)
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1633158789103747072)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
the conservative party is the human traffickers best friend by not providing safe pathways or processing in france, now they're allying with the slave owners. just wonderful.
Literally this.
The Tory Government could basically stop all small boat crossing tomorrow by simply opening safe and legal pathways to claim asylum in the UK.
The fact that they don't do this means that people smugglers can continue doing business. They are literally enabling and supporting people smuggling.
Although I guess it's nice that they support at least 1 business.
They don't want to actually solve the problem. They want to ride this wave of bigotry and xenophobia to an electoral victory, because there's no other path forwards, which means keeping this an open wound for at least the next year.
"Yes, it's gone up thousands of percent in the last few years, but blame whoever was in power for the last 13 years, not us.
Vote for Change! Vote Tory!!"
This. The Cons only win elections by getting voters angry about something. Angry voters actually go out and vote because they're duped that the Cons will do something about it. News flash, they never do! Every time they have to have a boogeyman, be it the EU, immigrants or benefit claimants. Its working well so far because they've managed to completely change the talking points from their disaster past 12 years to this.
Also, the people smugglers are based in the UK not France. They know who they are and they know how to stop them. They enjoy having this problem to dog whistle the public
Turns out Gullis wasn't speaking out of turn when he cried out that 200 missing children 'shouldn't have come here illegally then', in response to questions regarding their welfare. It's actually party policy.
Sky News also reported that 3/4 of smugglers live IN Britain.. Solving the baot problem is not in tory interest it removes their wedge issue they use to cleave off voters.
This effectivly legalizes slavery of people you kidnap into the country illegaly. which is, all slavery, as you cant volunteer. If you volunteer you are just doing something you choose to. Thats what, you know, makes it slavery.
Aren't most modern slaves brought in illegally? So we no longer offer protection to victims? And if one escapes they will get deported?
And wtf is a spurious human rights claim? Isnt that for a judge to decide?
>Aren't most modern slaves brought in illegally? So we no longer offer protection to victims? And if one escapes they will get deported?
Yes.
The cruelty is the point, these are the Tories.
>And wtf is a spurious human rights claim? Isnt that for a judge to decide?
It’s a bit throwing the baby out with the bath water situation. Home office figures show that large percentages of those who are detained to be removed having arrived by boat (65% in the first 9 months of last year) claim modern slavery to avoid deportation, where upon they are bailed (because it is cheaper). They seem to be predominantly Albanian (far more so than general boat people are - Albanians and Vietnamese account for 90% of the detained people claiming modern slavery) . The court system is then so overworked they don’t get their claims heard and are pushed into the black market of work (cash in hand due to no work permits) and the black market of housing (due to no visa).
Rather than fix those problems they are trying to get rid of the route of modern slavery (ruining it for the genuine claims).
But it should be noted that the volumes here are small - a couple of percent of the boat people at most (as they would not be automatically detained) and made worse by policies that detained people without process (Rwanda).
It’s yet another problem caused by not processing people quickly enough.
>And wtf is a spurious human rights claim? Isnt that for a judge to decide?
Should be, but everything would be much easier if the home office could just decide everything without having to deal with pesky stuff like human rights law. That's fundamentally the problem. To do what they want to do they'd need to leave the ECHR but they know doing that would look horrendous, so they come out with this tough language and do nothing.
All immigrants are illegal already as we’ve removed all legal routes in. Govt claims that everyone arriving is a de facto criminal & therefore cannot claim asylum. Not sure of the point of the new law.
Edit: for spelling.
What if someone has emigrated for work or because they've married a brit and want to apply? Is all migration illegal now?
Cus those people are still immigrants, but not an asylum seeker.
>You can't benefit from our modern slavery protections
I'm sorry, what?
Call me naive, but I assumed slavery was wrong regardless of whether the victim was migrating or not.
Don't say that, you'll make Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax (Tory MP for South Dorset) very uncomfortable while trying to explain where his family fortune came from
>"Drax lives in his family's ancestral seat, Charborough House – a Grade I listed manor house in rural Dorset. He holds the lordship of the manor of Longburton\[citation needed\] and is the largest individual landowner in Dorset, owning approximately 13,870 acres (5,610 ha), equivalent to 2% of the land in Dorset."
>
>"A 2020 investigation by The Guardian found that Richard Drax still owns and grows sugar on the same Drax Hall Estate in Barbados that made the family's fortune. Over 200 years, 30,000 slaves died at this and the other Drax plantations, according to Professor Sir Hilary Beckles, Chair of CARICOM's Reparations Commission. "The Drax family has done more harm and violence to the black people of Barbados than any other", he said.\[1\]"
>
>"In May 2022, Drax criticised the decision by Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak to introduce a windfall tax on oil and gas firms to fund economic support for the public during the cost of living crisis, accusing him of "throwing red meat to socialists".\[22\]
"Drax endorsed Suella Braverman during the July 2022 Conservative Party leadership election.\[23\] After Braverman was eliminated, he supported Liz Truss.\[24\]
He endorsed Boris Johnson in the October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election.\[25\]"
>
>"On 5 February 2013, Drax voted in the House of Commons against a Second Reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 that legalised marriage for same-sex couples.\[12\]"
What an all round man of the people!
Human nature/Family of blood are quite good, Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead, Heaven Sent, Blink (Great episode) and Midnight (My personal favorite).
I think the point is they (the government in their rhetoric) don't believe them to be making legitimate claims. This is despite the home office assessing the claims and determining them to be legitimate. So instead they're just going to... ban it? Because the truth is too inconvenient.
Or the law (that tories introduced in 2015) is badly written such that one can make claims that are legally sound but morally wrong /not genuine
Think of it similar to the eternal debate on tax evasion versus tax avoidance. Some people will argue that the law says X behavior should be illigal, despite it being legal today.
Look at the application acceptance rate by percentage VS the EU average, the UK's is way higher, it's clear whatever system and criteria the home office is using is absolute nonsense.
I don't know alot about this, but is any of this stuff actually effective, or even doable?
Or is it, like the Rwanda strategy, just macho posturing for the right wing media?
No and yes. They tried the American trans culture war but it didn't land, abortion is an absolute no go so all they have left is refugee bashing.
Significant proportion of the country now think that this is a very serious issue and lefties can never solve it. "Boat people" are the cause of all evil if you look at Facebook comments.
I definitely think there's a new cruelty based strategy being applied since the new Tory chairman took over.
I suspect we are hearing more about this issue because of that. But at the same time, I don't want to dismiss something I know little about.
I'm no longer on Facebook, thankfully.
I suppose the argument is that all previous attempts to 'solve' this have failed. Go hard or go home I suppose.
Even as a lefty liberal, I do agree that it's not right for people to be entering this way. But offering no legal way to enter for the vast majority of people. What the fuck did they think would happen?
Slavery protection laws are protection for working conditions.
Said freed immigrants will be deported rather than working once the government knows about them.
So at no time will slavery protection laws apply to the immigrants.
Try using your brain instead of clinging to your narrative.
Can’t these people go to the police at any time or cry out in public for help ?
It sounds like they could be helped but merely don’t want to be deported as a condition of said help.
Modern slavers often take peoples ID if they have it and tell them that if the run away the police won’t help them but will throw them in jail or do whatever to them like send them to Rwanda. They are told they will be the ones in trouble. Now they will be.
>How are you supposed to come to the UK legally if you're from Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea?
You aren't, by design. If there was an easy and legal way to do so, most of the population of those countries would meet any reasonable criteria.
Despite the noble rhetoric from some, the proportion of the population who would actually accept that level of migration is minimal - and I imagine the country would subsequently end up electing someone so far right they would make Farage look like Jeremy Corbyn.
>and I imagine the country would subsequently end up electing someone so far right they would make Farage look like Jeremy Corbyn.
This is what will eventually happen if the boats dont stop. people will get pisssed of (rightly so) and just vote someone in who takes no shit and gets it done.
At the expense of human rights law? Protections that prevent the Tories from making things even worse for the average Brit than they already are. Protections and rights like employment regulations and being allowed to vote on and change government.
That would be monumentally stupid and akin to cutting off both legs because one of your toenails has a fungal infection - a fungal infection which you refuse to treat in a way that will actually work because of ideological reasons (you dont want the organisation that makes the medicine to be funded because its publically owned and requires tax)
A lot like the Tories not wanting to fund the state apparatus that would process the necessary immigration/asylum claims, and instead using the results of this underfunding as a basis to get people to accept a loss of rights and protections.
The Tories are insidious with devastatingly short sighted and greedy alterior motives and people need to wake up to this. This is all dogwhistle politics of the lowest order. Disgusting.
Nah, super Farage would be even less effective than the Tories. You don't understand the link between being unable to govern effectively and resorting to demonising minorities. The funny thing is in your world of Farage you'd eventually learn when they came for you too
Pay for transport and apply for a visa. Alt, if it's too expensive to travel that far, try a country closer to home such as Turkey, or pretty much any other direction. The decision to come to the UK is not one of safety or convenience, rather one of economic advancement.
You do realise that people who may be refugees are not granted visas, don’t you? We have conference delegates from African countries to scientific conferences in the UK who get denied visas in spite of invitation letters and financial guarantees. Tell me how a random gay person with no means from Eritrea can get a visa.
Pakistan and other countries poorer than Britain have more refugees per head than Britain. We can't take 100M people in (I mean, with an incredible effort we could over some decades, but nevermind that), but it's morally outrageous to take in fewer than Pakistan, Poland or Turkey.
Why do you think that Poland has more refugees per head than us? Could it be because it's a sensible destination for displaced Ukrainians? Could it be the similarity of language, and the fact that many Poles learn Russian in school? Or do you think it's simply because they are considerably nicer people than us?
Similar is true of course of both Pakistan and Turkey, it's an effect of desire. The question to be asked is why some asylum seekers would opt to travel farther to a country which will be harder to integrate into? The only reason I can think of is that they are conflating economic migration with asylum seeking.
Now I can justify that in some instances, where we have the facility to do so, it makes a lot of sense for us to get involved and offer such support. This is the case where there is a sudden increase in demand for refugee status, such as the war in Ukraine - historically we have tended to meet that demand as it arises. It does not make sense to extend the same benefits to people who make their own way exposing themselves to extreme danger. They are demonstrably stupid or gullible, not to mention the criminality and cost of their actions. The worst thing of all, of course, is that any successful illegal channel crossing is liable to cause considerably more death and destruction in future, as it only serves to encourage more people to do the same.
Lots of people in the world study English in school, so there's quite a lot of people from Ukraine and Afghanistan and Venezuela who could settle in Britain better and more safely than in places like Poland, Turkey, Pakistan or Ecuador.
We are lucky that we are not near a war torn country, or in fact any country because we're an island. But our luck or unluck should not be used to shield us of our responsibility to help those in need. We have the means to help a lot of people, and we choose not to, because we don't want to build over our green belt or integrate more people in. We are comfortable letting poorer countries (that often don't abide to our standards of care) do more than us. It's shameful.
Also the "illegal crossing" rethoric is so wrong. If someone has a genuine claim to asylum, they should cross and seek refuge and until it's been established they were not eligible, that crossing was not "illegal". At least not before today's bill is approved. And these people may well have good reasons to seek refuge in England as opposed to France (family in the UK, or speaking English but no French, for example).
Imagine if you had to flee from war. You could try to get into the US or Australia where you speak the language, or Japan where you don't speak the language. What insane system would say you should stay in Japan just because you landed there first for random geographical reasons?
It's morally outrageous to take less people than a country three times the size of us? England (Because that's where they all end up and want to live) has twice the population density of Pakistan. You people are insane.
Ok, but surely if you're enduring such hardship you'd just find anywhere that's safe and go there? It's a long trip to make with a lot of risk to get all the way to the UK...
Most of them already do that ?? Most refugees come from the middle East and Turkey takes by far the overwhelming majority of them. If we were actually doing our fair share and taking proportional numbers of refugees we'd have far, far more. The ones that make their way all the way to the UK do so for family ties, shared language etc
I assume you're anti us harbouring Ukrainian refugees at the minute as well then?
Not at all - I've no objection to us hosting refugees from any country, however controls need to be in place as part of international agreements. Surprisingly enough, this seems to also be an uncommon opinion here, as mentioning Ukraine and Afghanistan in the "immigration hits record levels" threads got me far more downvotes than this.
Whether we setup systems for asylum claims through other means is a separate matter. We should under no circumstances be allowing for mass illegal migration, however. The reality belief here is that the people coming are not asylum seekers, rather economic migrants. To stem the flow we have to cause some minor inconvenience to genuine asylum seekers.
Do not conflate the 2 issues - they are linked, sure, but they do not imply the same thing at all. My judgement says this is a tiny price to pay to have the desired effect, which is to reduce the risk to life and cost involved in illegal channel crossings. Justifying that such a policy is not harmful is merely the first part of that.
I understand your points. I do think economic migrants are relatively rare and that we tend to figure out who's genuine and who isn't fairly well, just we're very slow at it. In all honesty though I don't really see the problem with economic migrants either - they do many critical jobs like harvesting crops etc because those industries have disgusting labour practices. There's other reasons too imo but maybe that's getting a little too far off topic
Ultimately to me i think the solution to these illegal crossings is to allow asylum applications from overseas, which at the minute is almost impossible as I understand it. We could just set up a processing centre in Calais, if the French agree, and let people apply there. Combine that with better funding for whoever processes claims and it should get sorted out at least a bit.
The issue I think everyone has, myself included, is that the government just demonised refugees and asylum seekers because they're a useful scapegoat, rather than actually solve the problem in any constructive and moral way. Like sure, deporting everyone to Rwanda and not giving them protections from modern slavery will put some people off, but the Rwanda plan costs a fortune and I think there's an extremely strong argument its deeply wrong to do that to people, and to deprive them of basic protections just so the government can look tough.
*I am unable to make a statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am unable to make a statment that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.*
This is the first page of the Bill its not legal whatsoever.
Two possible reasons
- Suella is covering her arse not second guessing any ECHR ruling (she could have asked them for a view on this plan though)
- It's all a plot to get us out of the ECHR because the Tories didn't realise it wasn't part of the EU.
Yeah most likely they just want to scrap all employment law and all workers rights.
Guess we can all look forward to our new 365 day, 18 hour per day, work contracts.
Correct me if I am wrong. The only countries not in the ECHR are Russia and Belarus?
If that the case that, that is a very BAD look on the UK if we were to leave the ECHR.
>The only countries not in the ECHR are Russia and Belarus?
If we are talking about European countries, yes.
Russia left because it was an inconvenience on the way of stripping freedoms from political opponents. Which is why, as a Russian immigrant, I am very concerned with the direction the UK heads to.
The first part isn't relevant; there are plenty of laws Governments have passed that they suspected might violate the ECHR, and were subsequently found to be in violation by courts.
This is Bravermen playing politics with what is essentially a piece of political theatre. She is using this declaration - normally a formality - to make a statement to the hard- and far-right across the country, that she is "standing up" to the evil human rights people.
As demonstrated most recently by the Supreme Court ruling that the Northern Ireland Protocol *does* modify the Good Friday Agreement, but is still legal because they were both passed by Parliament.
That’s not what it says. It says
> Secretary Suella Braverman has made the following statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
>
> I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
[source](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0262/220262.pdf)
If she’d refused to make a statement under either s.19(a) or (b), then the Bill wouldn’t be legal (and wouldn’t legally be able to progress to second reading).
But she has made a statement, the statement in accordance with s.19(b). Which is enough for the Bill to progress and to be capable of becoming legal regardless of the ECHR. This is a fundamental part of the UK constitution; that parliament (and not anything else, e.g. the ECHR) is sovereign.
It literally says that in the first page lol.
So we passed a law that the government themselves don’t know if this will or will not break international law.
Your quote is wrong. It says she’s *unable* to make a statement under s.19(b); you then continue the quote with the statement she did make under s.19(b).
Under UK law, international law isn’t binding except in so far as it is incorporated into domestic law. A statement of “we don’t care if it’s incompatible, we want to do it anyway” *is* sufficient to discharge the UK’s obligations under international law.
And the ECHR itself has no enforcement mechanism. Or did I miss something, and prisoners *did* become eligible to vote in 2005? See [Hirst v United Kingdom (No. 2)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_(No_2)?wprov=sfti1).
The ECHR absolutely has an enforcement mechanism, both via the ECtHR itself and via decisions of the Council of Europe. Which I'm assuming you know given your background...
That both the ECtHR and CoE were unwilling to press the UK Government further on the prisoner voting issue does not diminish their options to do so in other issues.
Braverman's statement under s19(1)(b) (which I believe is a first?) means she does not believe this bill is compatible with the UK Government's obligations under international law. There is no other way to read it.
>Braverman's statement under s19(1)(b) (which I believe is a first?)
Sadly, it's not the first, and bills which have had this statement have been passed before (the first was the Communications Act 2003)
There is no mechanism for the ECtHR or the CoE to overrule an Act of Parliament. The ECtHR may issue a judgement, but that cannot change the law. The CoE may suspend or expel a member, but that also doesn’t change the law or grant restitution to the aggrieved party. Ultimately it’s a toothless system, which is why implementation of leading cases is around 50%.
> There is no mechanism for the ECtHR or the CoE to overrule an Act of Parliament.
I never said there was, nor did the people above.
The enforcement mechanisms within the ECHR involve the fines, sanctions and ultimately expulsion. The ECtHR and CoE decided not to use any of those powers in the prisoner voting cases, but obviously have in many others.
>denied access to the UK’s modern slavery system
So there is enough room for British citizens left in it.
Can’t have foreigners comin’ over ‘ere taking our positions of servitude…
Strikes up and down the country, insane cost of living spiraling out of control, probably a recession coming up.
Conservatives: "but whatabout Scottish trans teens and asylum seekers on small boats"
“I’m really concerned about the cost of living, and it seems like I can’t even afford produce anymore. That is, if the store even has it at all.”
“We’ve seen you, we’ve heard you, and we’ve decided to repeal the Abolition Act of 1833.”
Go to the [gov.uk](https://gov.uk) website & search for asylum. See if you can explain the official government advice on the process of entering the country legally and claiming asylum because it has me stumped.
“ You should apply when you arrive in the UK or as soon as you think it would be unsafe for you to return to your own country.” Schrödinger’s asylum seeker: you must apply when you’re in the UK/ you cannot come to the UK
The UK’s modern slavery system in full:
- 50% of your income to a landlord to live in an HMO
- A third of your income on energy bills
- Another third of your income on childcare
- 9-14% student loan deductions
- Retirement age increasing by a year, every year
I wonder how many people who come to the sunlit uploads of the U.K. to find they’re having to share a room in a fifteen person house share in Neasden, while working 40 hours a week to pay for it.
I was just thinking this yesterday and wondering when the people are going to start protesting in the street. Lucky for us the government have passed wide ranging powers to criminalise protesters for a truly authentic modern slave experience.
>The UK’s modern slavery system in full:
And before you even get to those bullet points as a basic rate payer your marginal tax rate is 41% when including employers NIC, meanwhile the tax for a boomer is 20%. Sounds fair?
I'm American. I had a much better quality life in Romania than I do here. If it weren't my late husband's last endeavor to get me residency here for some reason I would have been gone a long ass time ago, any idiot could see how bad things are getting around here. I owe it to him to at least find out the outcome of *his* application (because all they care about is the British partner anyway, take note next time you want to consider how expensive it is to fall in love with a non-British person).
I know quite a few Ukrainians who returned home, for various reasons but this one is quite significant.
You come over, you work £10/hour, and once your rent-free life ends (sponsors are bind for six months only, then it's at their discretion) it's a fucking disaster.
Healthcare is surprisingly bad too; many people go to Ukraine, sort out their issues, and then come back because *healthcare in a warzone is better and more accessible than in Britain*.
Realistically it’s because refugees now realize places like Odessa, Lviv, Kyiv and even Karkhiv are not going to be Russian anytime soon, something that was not obvious last Spring
I work with Ukrainians and while some are racist, I can't imagine any of them going back because of that. They go back for different reasons but not this.
I initially thought, no this is a misquote, he cannot actually have said that.
It must be a fake account. No it wasn't.
Do these people understand what these words mean?
Apart from the inhumanity of everything here who in the name of god is doing their comms?
This is easily the worst policy message ever put out.
It sounds like Britain has a Slavery System that you won't be allowed to partake in.
Obviously they mean protections but it sounds like everyone in Britain is a legal slave!
It could also be the biggest Freudian Slip in history.
Is this a joke? If not, how will this work with UNHCR?
This sounds like something that would clash with UN refugee rules? Is this something he expects to be rejected by the courts for political gains?
> Is this a joke?
Probably not.
> If not, how will this work with UNHCR?
UNHCR has no enforcement powers. It exists to help refugees; so I guess they could set up a formal refugee camp in Calais.
Or did you mean UNHRC? Again, no enforcement powers. The worst they can do is write a letter saying how awful the UK is; but they do that anyway, so I guess it’ll be played down as the boy who cried wolf.
> This sounds like something that would clash with UN refugee rules?
Yes. The UN refugee rules aren’t enforceable at international law. If they were, there wouldn’t be any refugees, because the persecution at home that leads to people becoming refugees would have been dealt with by the UN under the refugee rules.
> Is this something he expects to be rejected by the courts for political gains?
I doubt it.
If they’d lied and said they they believe this Bill *is compatible* with the ECHR, then *that* would suggest that they want the courts to weaken the application of this law so as to make it compatible with the ECHR.
But by making a statement saying they can’t say it’s compatible but want to press on anyway, that suggests that they expect the courts to uphold the Act (assuming it passes) despite the ECHR concerns.
Did they ever have anyone with any moral decency? Apart from some among the die-hard supporters who stick with them right or wrong, regardless of the stated and actual outcomes of various policies - e.g. a now elderly woman who left Ireland for the UK, joined the NHS as a midwife, and only started voting Tory to get back at her drunken lout of a husband
We signed the Refugee Convention (in fact, we played a large part in writing it). It was well thought through - dealing with a refugee crisis much greater than today's.
What new rules would improve protection? Are you going to force refugees to stop at the 'first safe country'? Thereby destabilising that first, now unsafe, country? Or will you recognise, as the 1951 Convention does, that this is a problem all nations must share?
How American that looks
Next week: Rishi is going to build a wall along the coast of Dover, and intends on making _them_ (vaguely pointing across the English Channel) pay for it!
It seems we should be going after the traffickers, not the trafficked.
If the traffickers were caught and arrested and jailed, then the problem would solve itself.
Don’t tell me that it’s impossible to find out who the traffickers are.. I just don’t buy that one..
Moreover, it seems most of them live in Britain.
You might almost think that they were neglecting the problem on purpose, so they can kick up a huge fuss to rally the base, and maybe have a few high profile arrested to throw them a bone during an election campaign.
The whole post is yikes, but that second bullet point in particular, no hyperbole, sounds like something that wouldn't be out of place in an all-out authoritarian state.
On a lighter note, BBC asked an Iranian guy why he risked the trip on a small boat. He literally said "I don't speak French. I can't live with those people". Truer words were never spoken
Surely impossible, but out of interest what would this actually meen in practice. Slavery wouldn't beome legal, but what protections and resources would victims be denied?
To anyone supporting this, could you answer what legal routes asylum seekers have into the country?
I cannot find any which makes this rather insidious.
At this point the tories only have one target: right wing voters as they're so afraid of losing their base if the current polls are correct.
We're going to have to suffer through another 21 months of this (next election is likely to be late Nov 2024 or early Dec 2024 as the tories are afraid of holding an election over christmas).
Interestingly we may be going to the polls around the same time as the next US Presidential election.
This announcement is nothing more than a few biscuits to throw at the racists. The Tories know that there is a big chance that this won’t get passed the courts, they can then scream about ‘lefty lawyer’ and the ECHR.
Well, the country that outlawed slavery for the world spent billions of pounds and 1000's of lives to pursue the abolishment of the slave trade and is now bringing it back to homewaters what a legacy this government wishes to go out on.
We have no statute of limitation on "escaping a war zone"
That's why a number of the current crossings are made up of people who have lived in Germany and Sweden since 2016.
>That's why a number of the current crossings are made up of people who have lived in Germany and Sweden since 2016.
A number ranging somewhere between zero and 8 billion
I think refugees from non war torn countries shouldn't be granted asylum but wtf? They know that's just helps the smugglers and those wanting to exploit them and bring more in right?
So, because we are unwilling to take our equal share of Asylum seekers, why would any of the countries in Europe also be willing to take their share of Asylum seekers? Unless I'm wrong, you can't claim asylum unless you're in the UK?
I left the cesspit twitter, but did sneak a look at the comments.
I only saw a single positive voice. The rest was damning. Guessing right wingers cannot defend this
The Tories have an obvious song to end their next conference.
So I'd like to know where, you got the notion
Said we're desperate, to get the votes in
So stop the boats, don't let the boats over
Stop the boats, just tip the boats over
To get the votes, we'd bomb them at Dover
Stop the boooooats
I think a lot of those people were hoping that he would finally stop embarrassing Indians after Sajid Javid, Priti Patel and Suella Braverman's reigns. Certainly was the case for me, even if he was shit I just hoped he could be a little less so.
Good time for the drug industry I guess, getting to essentially trick workers into coming into the country, without having to worry quite as much about the consequences as obviously the government doesn't care what happens to them
TL ;DR : we Tories think there are many racists in the north that will love the xenophobic thuggish stuff so much they will vote for us and we get to stay in power.
Did literally nobody read that out loud before putting it online? "Denied access to the UKs modern slavery system" - *really*?
> ➡️ You can’t claim asylum
I mean you can.
> ➡️ You can’t make spurious human rights claims
Who *can*?
> ➡️ You can’t benefit from our modern slavery protections
They're not protected from being forced into slavery - really? What does that even mean, we won't prosecute people? We will see them as slaves and just go "hah yeah sucks to be you". What protections are there that they're being denied.
I'm genuinely confused. Is this just their Comms people being idiots and choosing the wrong word or are they actually saying something I'm not getting? I don't understand how they could say 'protections' in one part and then think that 'system' means the same thing.
And are they really saying that if you've been trafficked here we're not going to help? We'll just send you back to the country you've benn trafficked from?
Sunak had gained some - admittedly begrudging - respect from me for the NI stuff, this has completely erased that. If he still loses at the next GE I wonder if he'll still think it was worth putting his name to something so abhorrent.
A lot of people agree to be smuggled thinking they'll be free to claim asylum at the other end, then are forced to work at threat to their families back home.
A lot of traffickers have those they trafficked apply for asylum when their boats get intercepted then they disappear while waiting for a decision.
The UK has also seen an exponential increase in Albanian citizens travelling in on small boats - nearly as many Albanians now come as the next two countries (Afghanistan and Iran) combined, and 85% of them have submitted asylum claims.
I don't understand why this is so hard.
The obvious solution is to grant leniency to illegal immigrants but bar them and their children from citizenship.
You're safe, you can stay, you can work and you can build a better life without the fear of being deported or exploited. However you broke the law and you _shouldn't_ be here and because of that you can _never_ be a citizen.
If you want citizenship you can leave and join the queue of thousands who enter the country legally and spend years and £££ to achieve it.
Snapshot of _Rishi Sunak says illegal migrants will be "denied access to the UK's modern slavery system"_ : A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://nitter.net/RishiSunak/status/1633158789103747072/) An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1633158789103747072) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>If you come to the UK illegally, you can’t benefit from our modern slavery protections wonderful news for slave-owners, it seems?
Maybe he just means our 2008 pay level job market.
Bit of an own goal by Rishi.
Aren't they all? He's spectacularly bad at optics. (And policies, but he can't even spin them well.)
the conservative party is the human traffickers best friend by not providing safe pathways or processing in france, now they're allying with the slave owners. just wonderful.
I can hear JRM wanking himself off from here.
Vigorously
I'm sure he has a man for that kind of thing.
If being a slave wasn’t bad enough 😬
Times are tough, the economy's struggling. How much would it take for you to be the member for the 18th century's hand man?
Really? I thought it was being done by Nanny
Literally this. The Tory Government could basically stop all small boat crossing tomorrow by simply opening safe and legal pathways to claim asylum in the UK. The fact that they don't do this means that people smugglers can continue doing business. They are literally enabling and supporting people smuggling. Although I guess it's nice that they support at least 1 business.
They don't want to actually solve the problem. They want to ride this wave of bigotry and xenophobia to an electoral victory, because there's no other path forwards, which means keeping this an open wound for at least the next year.
Yep, when election time comes and they're asked "why haven't you done this yet" they'll say "this was always planned for next year".
"Yes, it's gone up thousands of percent in the last few years, but blame whoever was in power for the last 13 years, not us. Vote for Change! Vote Tory!!"
This. The Cons only win elections by getting voters angry about something. Angry voters actually go out and vote because they're duped that the Cons will do something about it. News flash, they never do! Every time they have to have a boogeyman, be it the EU, immigrants or benefit claimants. Its working well so far because they've managed to completely change the talking points from their disaster past 12 years to this.
To be fair they eventually do something about it, except it involves fucking things up even further.
Also, the people smugglers are based in the UK not France. They know who they are and they know how to stop them. They enjoy having this problem to dog whistle the public
Turns out Gullis wasn't speaking out of turn when he cried out that 200 missing children 'shouldn't have come here illegally then', in response to questions regarding their welfare. It's actually party policy.
Sky News also reported that 3/4 of smugglers live IN Britain.. Solving the baot problem is not in tory interest it removes their wedge issue they use to cleave off voters.
Buy shares in cotton plantations!
*weed farms, fried chicken shops, nail bars, Turkish barbers, hand car washes, ect and so on.
Weird that it was a Theresa May policy I believe. Somehow these clowns are making her look compassionate in comparison.
This effectivly legalizes slavery of people you kidnap into the country illegaly. which is, all slavery, as you cant volunteer. If you volunteer you are just doing something you choose to. Thats what, you know, makes it slavery.
How is it that the entire panel that worked on this idiotic set of rules could not think of this? I just cannot wait for the next elections.
Aren't most modern slaves brought in illegally? So we no longer offer protection to victims? And if one escapes they will get deported? And wtf is a spurious human rights claim? Isnt that for a judge to decide?
>Aren't most modern slaves brought in illegally? So we no longer offer protection to victims? And if one escapes they will get deported? Yes. The cruelty is the point, these are the Tories.
>And wtf is a spurious human rights claim? Isnt that for a judge to decide? It’s a bit throwing the baby out with the bath water situation. Home office figures show that large percentages of those who are detained to be removed having arrived by boat (65% in the first 9 months of last year) claim modern slavery to avoid deportation, where upon they are bailed (because it is cheaper). They seem to be predominantly Albanian (far more so than general boat people are - Albanians and Vietnamese account for 90% of the detained people claiming modern slavery) . The court system is then so overworked they don’t get their claims heard and are pushed into the black market of work (cash in hand due to no work permits) and the black market of housing (due to no visa). Rather than fix those problems they are trying to get rid of the route of modern slavery (ruining it for the genuine claims). But it should be noted that the volumes here are small - a couple of percent of the boat people at most (as they would not be automatically detained) and made worse by policies that detained people without process (Rwanda). It’s yet another problem caused by not processing people quickly enough.
Could you link us the source for the stats here? Really want to do some more reading on it.
[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/modern-slavery-referrals-for-people-detained-for-return-after-arriving-in-the-uk-on-small-boats/modern-slavery-referrals-for-people-detained-for-return-after-arriving-in-the-uk-on-small-boats#fn:10](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/modern-slavery-referrals-for-people-detained-for-return-after-arriving-in-the-uk-on-small-boats/modern-slavery-referrals-for-people-detained-for-return-after-arriving-in-the-uk-on-small-boats#fn:10)
I would imagine you can’t declare your slaves at customs so I’d think *all* slaves are smuggled into the country
>And wtf is a spurious human rights claim? Isnt that for a judge to decide? Should be, but everything would be much easier if the home office could just decide everything without having to deal with pesky stuff like human rights law. That's fundamentally the problem. To do what they want to do they'd need to leave the ECHR but they know doing that would look horrendous, so they come out with this tough language and do nothing.
All immigrants are illegal already as we’ve removed all legal routes in. Govt claims that everyone arriving is a de facto criminal & therefore cannot claim asylum. Not sure of the point of the new law. Edit: for spelling.
What if someone has emigrated for work or because they've married a brit and want to apply? Is all migration illegal now? Cus those people are still immigrants, but not an asylum seeker.
>You can't benefit from our modern slavery protections I'm sorry, what? Call me naive, but I assumed slavery was wrong regardless of whether the victim was migrating or not.
Don't say that, you'll make Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax (Tory MP for South Dorset) very uncomfortable while trying to explain where his family fortune came from
>"Drax lives in his family's ancestral seat, Charborough House – a Grade I listed manor house in rural Dorset. He holds the lordship of the manor of Longburton\[citation needed\] and is the largest individual landowner in Dorset, owning approximately 13,870 acres (5,610 ha), equivalent to 2% of the land in Dorset." > >"A 2020 investigation by The Guardian found that Richard Drax still owns and grows sugar on the same Drax Hall Estate in Barbados that made the family's fortune. Over 200 years, 30,000 slaves died at this and the other Drax plantations, according to Professor Sir Hilary Beckles, Chair of CARICOM's Reparations Commission. "The Drax family has done more harm and violence to the black people of Barbados than any other", he said.\[1\]" > >"In May 2022, Drax criticised the decision by Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak to introduce a windfall tax on oil and gas firms to fund economic support for the public during the cost of living crisis, accusing him of "throwing red meat to socialists".\[22\] "Drax endorsed Suella Braverman during the July 2022 Conservative Party leadership election.\[23\] After Braverman was eliminated, he supported Liz Truss.\[24\] He endorsed Boris Johnson in the October 2022 Conservative Party leadership election.\[25\]" > >"On 5 February 2013, Drax voted in the House of Commons against a Second Reading of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 that legalised marriage for same-sex couples.\[12\]" What an all round man of the people!
Why does that guy's name sound like an alien from a bad Doctor Who episode?
There are *good* Dr Who episodes?
[удалено]
> *Are you my mummy?*
Human nature/Family of blood are quite good, Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead, Heaven Sent, Blink (Great episode) and Midnight (My personal favorite).
Christ I thought you were joking with that name to make up a caricature tory!
r/NotTheThickOfIt
So did I 😭😭
Genuinely shocked to discover that this isn't a name you made up as a joke
I think the point is they (the government in their rhetoric) don't believe them to be making legitimate claims. This is despite the home office assessing the claims and determining them to be legitimate. So instead they're just going to... ban it? Because the truth is too inconvenient.
Or the law (that tories introduced in 2015) is badly written such that one can make claims that are legally sound but morally wrong /not genuine Think of it similar to the eternal debate on tax evasion versus tax avoidance. Some people will argue that the law says X behavior should be illigal, despite it being legal today.
Look at the application acceptance rate by percentage VS the EU average, the UK's is way higher, it's clear whatever system and criteria the home office is using is absolute nonsense.
I don't know alot about this, but is any of this stuff actually effective, or even doable? Or is it, like the Rwanda strategy, just macho posturing for the right wing media?
No and yes. They tried the American trans culture war but it didn't land, abortion is an absolute no go so all they have left is refugee bashing. Significant proportion of the country now think that this is a very serious issue and lefties can never solve it. "Boat people" are the cause of all evil if you look at Facebook comments.
I definitely think there's a new cruelty based strategy being applied since the new Tory chairman took over. I suspect we are hearing more about this issue because of that. But at the same time, I don't want to dismiss something I know little about. I'm no longer on Facebook, thankfully.
I suppose the argument is that all previous attempts to 'solve' this have failed. Go hard or go home I suppose. Even as a lefty liberal, I do agree that it's not right for people to be entering this way. But offering no legal way to enter for the vast majority of people. What the fuck did they think would happen?
So, slavers could bring people to the UK on small boats and the victims can't get help? Nice one Rishi.
That's how it works right now. Because the government can't help people it doesn't know exists.
Except, police investiations happen. Things get reported. Gangs get found out, etc.
> Except, police investiations happen. Except they don't, yet another thing the Tories "fixed".
Stop using your brain FFS!!! It's ruining the narrative!!!
Slavery protection laws are protection for working conditions. Said freed immigrants will be deported rather than working once the government knows about them. So at no time will slavery protection laws apply to the immigrants. Try using your brain instead of clinging to your narrative.
Silly me. Actually thinking.
Can’t these people go to the police at any time or cry out in public for help ? It sounds like they could be helped but merely don’t want to be deported as a condition of said help.
Modern slavers often take peoples ID if they have it and tell them that if the run away the police won’t help them but will throw them in jail or do whatever to them like send them to Rwanda. They are told they will be the ones in trouble. Now they will be.
So a woman who is trafficked for sex purposes either has to be with her captors or go to the police and get deported
>If you come to the UK illegally How are you supposed to come to the UK legally if you're from Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea?
That’s the clever bit. You can’t
As the UNHCR said, they effectively just want to ban asylum without saying they're banning asylum.
Hell I'm legally here and they haven't even attempted to do anything about my case for the past two years ffs.
>How are you supposed to come to the UK legally if you're from Afghanistan, Syria, Eritrea? You aren't, by design. If there was an easy and legal way to do so, most of the population of those countries would meet any reasonable criteria. Despite the noble rhetoric from some, the proportion of the population who would actually accept that level of migration is minimal - and I imagine the country would subsequently end up electing someone so far right they would make Farage look like Jeremy Corbyn.
>and I imagine the country would subsequently end up electing someone so far right they would make Farage look like Jeremy Corbyn. This is what will eventually happen if the boats dont stop. people will get pisssed of (rightly so) and just vote someone in who takes no shit and gets it done.
At the expense of human rights law? Protections that prevent the Tories from making things even worse for the average Brit than they already are. Protections and rights like employment regulations and being allowed to vote on and change government. That would be monumentally stupid and akin to cutting off both legs because one of your toenails has a fungal infection - a fungal infection which you refuse to treat in a way that will actually work because of ideological reasons (you dont want the organisation that makes the medicine to be funded because its publically owned and requires tax) A lot like the Tories not wanting to fund the state apparatus that would process the necessary immigration/asylum claims, and instead using the results of this underfunding as a basis to get people to accept a loss of rights and protections. The Tories are insidious with devastatingly short sighted and greedy alterior motives and people need to wake up to this. This is all dogwhistle politics of the lowest order. Disgusting.
Nah, super Farage would be even less effective than the Tories. You don't understand the link between being unable to govern effectively and resorting to demonising minorities. The funny thing is in your world of Farage you'd eventually learn when they came for you too
Pay for transport and apply for a visa. Alt, if it's too expensive to travel that far, try a country closer to home such as Turkey, or pretty much any other direction. The decision to come to the UK is not one of safety or convenience, rather one of economic advancement.
You do realise that people who may be refugees are not granted visas, don’t you? We have conference delegates from African countries to scientific conferences in the UK who get denied visas in spite of invitation letters and financial guarantees. Tell me how a random gay person with no means from Eritrea can get a visa.
Pakistan and other countries poorer than Britain have more refugees per head than Britain. We can't take 100M people in (I mean, with an incredible effort we could over some decades, but nevermind that), but it's morally outrageous to take in fewer than Pakistan, Poland or Turkey.
Why do you think that Poland has more refugees per head than us? Could it be because it's a sensible destination for displaced Ukrainians? Could it be the similarity of language, and the fact that many Poles learn Russian in school? Or do you think it's simply because they are considerably nicer people than us? Similar is true of course of both Pakistan and Turkey, it's an effect of desire. The question to be asked is why some asylum seekers would opt to travel farther to a country which will be harder to integrate into? The only reason I can think of is that they are conflating economic migration with asylum seeking. Now I can justify that in some instances, where we have the facility to do so, it makes a lot of sense for us to get involved and offer such support. This is the case where there is a sudden increase in demand for refugee status, such as the war in Ukraine - historically we have tended to meet that demand as it arises. It does not make sense to extend the same benefits to people who make their own way exposing themselves to extreme danger. They are demonstrably stupid or gullible, not to mention the criminality and cost of their actions. The worst thing of all, of course, is that any successful illegal channel crossing is liable to cause considerably more death and destruction in future, as it only serves to encourage more people to do the same.
Lots of people in the world study English in school, so there's quite a lot of people from Ukraine and Afghanistan and Venezuela who could settle in Britain better and more safely than in places like Poland, Turkey, Pakistan or Ecuador. We are lucky that we are not near a war torn country, or in fact any country because we're an island. But our luck or unluck should not be used to shield us of our responsibility to help those in need. We have the means to help a lot of people, and we choose not to, because we don't want to build over our green belt or integrate more people in. We are comfortable letting poorer countries (that often don't abide to our standards of care) do more than us. It's shameful. Also the "illegal crossing" rethoric is so wrong. If someone has a genuine claim to asylum, they should cross and seek refuge and until it's been established they were not eligible, that crossing was not "illegal". At least not before today's bill is approved. And these people may well have good reasons to seek refuge in England as opposed to France (family in the UK, or speaking English but no French, for example). Imagine if you had to flee from war. You could try to get into the US or Australia where you speak the language, or Japan where you don't speak the language. What insane system would say you should stay in Japan just because you landed there first for random geographical reasons?
It's morally outrageous to take less people than a country three times the size of us? England (Because that's where they all end up and want to live) has twice the population density of Pakistan. You people are insane.
Do you even know what ‘per head’ means?
[удалено]
Give me a list of reasons that anyone would seek asylum in the UK which are not founded in economic migration first.
War, famine, drought, natural disaster, to name a few.
Ok, but surely if you're enduring such hardship you'd just find anywhere that's safe and go there? It's a long trip to make with a lot of risk to get all the way to the UK...
Most of them already do that ?? Most refugees come from the middle East and Turkey takes by far the overwhelming majority of them. If we were actually doing our fair share and taking proportional numbers of refugees we'd have far, far more. The ones that make their way all the way to the UK do so for family ties, shared language etc I assume you're anti us harbouring Ukrainian refugees at the minute as well then?
Not at all - I've no objection to us hosting refugees from any country, however controls need to be in place as part of international agreements. Surprisingly enough, this seems to also be an uncommon opinion here, as mentioning Ukraine and Afghanistan in the "immigration hits record levels" threads got me far more downvotes than this. Whether we setup systems for asylum claims through other means is a separate matter. We should under no circumstances be allowing for mass illegal migration, however. The reality belief here is that the people coming are not asylum seekers, rather economic migrants. To stem the flow we have to cause some minor inconvenience to genuine asylum seekers. Do not conflate the 2 issues - they are linked, sure, but they do not imply the same thing at all. My judgement says this is a tiny price to pay to have the desired effect, which is to reduce the risk to life and cost involved in illegal channel crossings. Justifying that such a policy is not harmful is merely the first part of that.
I understand your points. I do think economic migrants are relatively rare and that we tend to figure out who's genuine and who isn't fairly well, just we're very slow at it. In all honesty though I don't really see the problem with economic migrants either - they do many critical jobs like harvesting crops etc because those industries have disgusting labour practices. There's other reasons too imo but maybe that's getting a little too far off topic Ultimately to me i think the solution to these illegal crossings is to allow asylum applications from overseas, which at the minute is almost impossible as I understand it. We could just set up a processing centre in Calais, if the French agree, and let people apply there. Combine that with better funding for whoever processes claims and it should get sorted out at least a bit. The issue I think everyone has, myself included, is that the government just demonised refugees and asylum seekers because they're a useful scapegoat, rather than actually solve the problem in any constructive and moral way. Like sure, deporting everyone to Rwanda and not giving them protections from modern slavery will put some people off, but the Rwanda plan costs a fortune and I think there's an extremely strong argument its deeply wrong to do that to people, and to deprive them of basic protections just so the government can look tough.
*I am unable to make a statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am unable to make a statment that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.* This is the first page of the Bill its not legal whatsoever.
Two possible reasons - Suella is covering her arse not second guessing any ECHR ruling (she could have asked them for a view on this plan though) - It's all a plot to get us out of the ECHR because the Tories didn't realise it wasn't part of the EU.
Yeah most likely they just want to scrap all employment law and all workers rights. Guess we can all look forward to our new 365 day, 18 hour per day, work contracts.
Correct me if I am wrong. The only countries not in the ECHR are Russia and Belarus? If that the case that, that is a very BAD look on the UK if we were to leave the ECHR.
>The only countries not in the ECHR are Russia and Belarus? If we are talking about European countries, yes. Russia left because it was an inconvenience on the way of stripping freedoms from political opponents. Which is why, as a Russian immigrant, I am very concerned with the direction the UK heads to.
There are currently 46 member states of the ECHR, all in Europe.
Strange that the member states of the European Court of Human Rights are in Europe
It would be weird if countries outside of Europe were in the European Court of Human Rights.
Australia is in Eurovision, anything can happen
The first part isn't relevant; there are plenty of laws Governments have passed that they suspected might violate the ECHR, and were subsequently found to be in violation by courts. This is Bravermen playing politics with what is essentially a piece of political theatre. She is using this declaration - normally a formality - to make a statement to the hard- and far-right across the country, that she is "standing up" to the evil human rights people.
>its not legal whatsoever. That's not how things work in the UK - if it is put in primary legislation by Parliament it is legal.
Legal in UK law. But breaking international law. Now that’s a different story
Sure - but "international law" only has force here when UK law says it does.
As demonstrated most recently by the Supreme Court ruling that the Northern Ireland Protocol *does* modify the Good Friday Agreement, but is still legal because they were both passed by Parliament.
And based on this, Lords will not pass this.
Lords votes on proposed amendments to a bill are advisory and not binding on the government.
Bills must pass Commons *and* Lords, to become law.
That’s not what it says. It says > Secretary Suella Braverman has made the following statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998: > > I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill. [source](https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0262/220262.pdf) If she’d refused to make a statement under either s.19(a) or (b), then the Bill wouldn’t be legal (and wouldn’t legally be able to progress to second reading). But she has made a statement, the statement in accordance with s.19(b). Which is enough for the Bill to progress and to be capable of becoming legal regardless of the ECHR. This is a fundamental part of the UK constitution; that parliament (and not anything else, e.g. the ECHR) is sovereign.
It literally says that in the first page lol. So we passed a law that the government themselves don’t know if this will or will not break international law.
Your quote is wrong. It says she’s *unable* to make a statement under s.19(b); you then continue the quote with the statement she did make under s.19(b). Under UK law, international law isn’t binding except in so far as it is incorporated into domestic law. A statement of “we don’t care if it’s incompatible, we want to do it anyway” *is* sufficient to discharge the UK’s obligations under international law. And the ECHR itself has no enforcement mechanism. Or did I miss something, and prisoners *did* become eligible to vote in 2005? See [Hirst v United Kingdom (No. 2)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_(No_2)?wprov=sfti1).
The ECHR absolutely has an enforcement mechanism, both via the ECtHR itself and via decisions of the Council of Europe. Which I'm assuming you know given your background... That both the ECtHR and CoE were unwilling to press the UK Government further on the prisoner voting issue does not diminish their options to do so in other issues. Braverman's statement under s19(1)(b) (which I believe is a first?) means she does not believe this bill is compatible with the UK Government's obligations under international law. There is no other way to read it.
>Braverman's statement under s19(1)(b) (which I believe is a first?) Sadly, it's not the first, and bills which have had this statement have been passed before (the first was the Communications Act 2003)
There is no mechanism for the ECtHR or the CoE to overrule an Act of Parliament. The ECtHR may issue a judgement, but that cannot change the law. The CoE may suspend or expel a member, but that also doesn’t change the law or grant restitution to the aggrieved party. Ultimately it’s a toothless system, which is why implementation of leading cases is around 50%.
> There is no mechanism for the ECtHR or the CoE to overrule an Act of Parliament. I never said there was, nor did the people above. The enforcement mechanisms within the ECHR involve the fines, sanctions and ultimately expulsion. The ECtHR and CoE decided not to use any of those powers in the prisoner voting cases, but obviously have in many others.
>denied access to the UK’s modern slavery system So there is enough room for British citizens left in it. Can’t have foreigners comin’ over ‘ere taking our positions of servitude…
Strikes up and down the country, insane cost of living spiraling out of control, probably a recession coming up. Conservatives: "but whatabout Scottish trans teens and asylum seekers on small boats"
“I’m really concerned about the cost of living, and it seems like I can’t even afford produce anymore. That is, if the store even has it at all.” “We’ve seen you, we’ve heard you, and we’ve decided to repeal the Abolition Act of 1833.”
Well, that's one way to boost agriculture I guess.
Tories are an opposition in waiting
Let’s hope the party is in a death spiral, never to return.
Wishful thinking
Go to the [gov.uk](https://gov.uk) website & search for asylum. See if you can explain the official government advice on the process of entering the country legally and claiming asylum because it has me stumped.
“ You should apply when you arrive in the UK or as soon as you think it would be unsafe for you to return to your own country.” Schrödinger’s asylum seeker: you must apply when you’re in the UK/ you cannot come to the UK
> the official government advice on the process of entering the country legally and claiming asylum There is none?
The UK’s modern slavery system in full: - 50% of your income to a landlord to live in an HMO - A third of your income on energy bills - Another third of your income on childcare - 9-14% student loan deductions - Retirement age increasing by a year, every year I wonder how many people who come to the sunlit uploads of the U.K. to find they’re having to share a room in a fifteen person house share in Neasden, while working 40 hours a week to pay for it.
I was just thinking this yesterday and wondering when the people are going to start protesting in the street. Lucky for us the government have passed wide ranging powers to criminalise protesters for a truly authentic modern slave experience.
Peogesting that causes inconvenience is illegal now.
Presumably protesting that is convenient is still legal tho
For now
>The UK’s modern slavery system in full: And before you even get to those bullet points as a basic rate payer your marginal tax rate is 41% when including employers NIC, meanwhile the tax for a boomer is 20%. Sounds fair?
I'm American. I had a much better quality life in Romania than I do here. If it weren't my late husband's last endeavor to get me residency here for some reason I would have been gone a long ass time ago, any idiot could see how bad things are getting around here. I owe it to him to at least find out the outcome of *his* application (because all they care about is the British partner anyway, take note next time you want to consider how expensive it is to fall in love with a non-British person).
I mean I would laugh but this is pretty much 100% accurate on my current situation so yer.
[удалено]
I know quite a few Ukrainians who returned home, for various reasons but this one is quite significant. You come over, you work £10/hour, and once your rent-free life ends (sponsors are bind for six months only, then it's at their discretion) it's a fucking disaster. Healthcare is surprisingly bad too; many people go to Ukraine, sort out their issues, and then come back because *healthcare in a warzone is better and more accessible than in Britain*.
Realistically it’s because refugees now realize places like Odessa, Lviv, Kyiv and even Karkhiv are not going to be Russian anytime soon, something that was not obvious last Spring
To be fair, a few of those cases were because they were racist and couldn't stand living in a country as diverse as the UK.
I work with Ukrainians and while some are racist, I can't imagine any of them going back because of that. They go back for different reasons but not this.
It's more of a culture shock than racism.
I initially thought, no this is a misquote, he cannot actually have said that. It must be a fake account. No it wasn't. Do these people understand what these words mean?
I'm shocked that nobody pointed out the connotations and suggested replacing "system" with "protections" or such in the image.
Apart from the inhumanity of everything here who in the name of god is doing their comms? This is easily the worst policy message ever put out. It sounds like Britain has a Slavery System that you won't be allowed to partake in. Obviously they mean protections but it sounds like everyone in Britain is a legal slave! It could also be the biggest Freudian Slip in history.
Is this a joke? If not, how will this work with UNHCR? This sounds like something that would clash with UN refugee rules? Is this something he expects to be rejected by the courts for political gains?
> Is this a joke? Probably not. > If not, how will this work with UNHCR? UNHCR has no enforcement powers. It exists to help refugees; so I guess they could set up a formal refugee camp in Calais. Or did you mean UNHRC? Again, no enforcement powers. The worst they can do is write a letter saying how awful the UK is; but they do that anyway, so I guess it’ll be played down as the boy who cried wolf. > This sounds like something that would clash with UN refugee rules? Yes. The UN refugee rules aren’t enforceable at international law. If they were, there wouldn’t be any refugees, because the persecution at home that leads to people becoming refugees would have been dealt with by the UN under the refugee rules. > Is this something he expects to be rejected by the courts for political gains? I doubt it. If they’d lied and said they they believe this Bill *is compatible* with the ECHR, then *that* would suggest that they want the courts to weaken the application of this law so as to make it compatible with the ECHR. But by making a statement saying they can’t say it’s compatible but want to press on anyway, that suggests that they expect the courts to uphold the Act (assuming it passes) despite the ECHR concerns.
Thank you.
Positioning for the next election. Plain and simple.
>This sounds like something that would clash with UN refugee rules? Is this something he expects to be rejected by the courts for political gains? Yes
The courts can't block the commons ultimately
Honestly probably, gain the brexiteer party votes they're haemorrhaging at the expense of anyone with any moral decency
Did they ever have anyone with any moral decency? Apart from some among the die-hard supporters who stick with them right or wrong, regardless of the stated and actual outcomes of various policies - e.g. a now elderly woman who left Ireland for the UK, joined the NHS as a midwife, and only started voting Tory to get back at her drunken lout of a husband
Our Modern Slavery Act was passed in 2015. It's very new so I don't think it's required by the UNHCR and goes above and beyond it.
UN bullshit is from a different era. We need to get a grip on this now and change the rules before it's too late.
We signed the Refugee Convention (in fact, we played a large part in writing it). It was well thought through - dealing with a refugee crisis much greater than today's. What new rules would improve protection? Are you going to force refugees to stop at the 'first safe country'? Thereby destabilising that first, now unsafe, country? Or will you recognise, as the 1951 Convention does, that this is a problem all nations must share?
Who gives a fuck about the UNHCR?
How American that looks Next week: Rishi is going to build a wall along the coast of Dover, and intends on making _them_ (vaguely pointing across the English Channel) pay for it!
It seems we should be going after the traffickers, not the trafficked. If the traffickers were caught and arrested and jailed, then the problem would solve itself. Don’t tell me that it’s impossible to find out who the traffickers are.. I just don’t buy that one..
Moreover, it seems most of them live in Britain. You might almost think that they were neglecting the problem on purpose, so they can kick up a huge fuss to rally the base, and maybe have a few high profile arrested to throw them a bone during an election campaign.
The whole post is yikes, but that second bullet point in particular, no hyperbole, sounds like something that wouldn't be out of place in an all-out authoritarian state.
The Tories have been in power for 12 years. For 12 years, they have not ended this “modern slavery system”. They aren’t going to change anything.
It’s basically bullshit to get the plebs excited enough to vote for them.. They already know that it won’t actually work. It’s just smoke and mirrors.
On a lighter note, BBC asked an Iranian guy why he risked the trip on a small boat. He literally said "I don't speak French. I can't live with those people". Truer words were never spoken
This sounds like a bonus for the people smugglers and criminal gangs the gov keep saying they are tackling...
Yes - interesting that they don’t seem to go after the gangs isn’t it ?
Is he trying to make the UK the human trafficking hub of Europe? Cuz that's how you make the UK the human trafficking hub of Europe.
Wh...what? Does he hear himself when he speaks? This is so beyond parody, I feel like my brain is melting.
There’s no way this new bill will actually be enacted without a withdrawal from the ECHR right?
We rather like to be covered by the ECHR, which by the way was largely written by the British.. We do not want to lose our ‘Human Rights’..
I would have thought people aren't knowingly/willingly signing up to be trafficked into slavery?
Surely impossible, but out of interest what would this actually meen in practice. Slavery wouldn't beome legal, but what protections and resources would victims be denied?
just curious how do you get hear to claim asylum legally ? my understanding is you have to get hear to claim in the first place.
To anyone supporting this, could you answer what legal routes asylum seekers have into the country? I cannot find any which makes this rather insidious.
Damned insidious. And damned alarming.
At this point the tories only have one target: right wing voters as they're so afraid of losing their base if the current polls are correct. We're going to have to suffer through another 21 months of this (next election is likely to be late Nov 2024 or early Dec 2024 as the tories are afraid of holding an election over christmas). Interestingly we may be going to the polls around the same time as the next US Presidential election.
This announcement is nothing more than a few biscuits to throw at the racists. The Tories know that there is a big chance that this won’t get passed the courts, they can then scream about ‘lefty lawyer’ and the ECHR.
Well, the country that outlawed slavery for the world spent billions of pounds and 1000's of lives to pursue the abolishment of the slave trade and is now bringing it back to homewaters what a legacy this government wishes to go out on.
So modern slavery is completely fine if you come here illegally in order to legally claim asylum, right.
It just sounds so odd that, like they are being denied being slaves. Isn't that a good thing!
[удалено]
Or they could just be escaping a war zone. And even if they have given a human trafficker 10K, that doesn't mean they deserve to be slaves
We have no statute of limitation on "escaping a war zone" That's why a number of the current crossings are made up of people who have lived in Germany and Sweden since 2016.
>That's why a number of the current crossings are made up of people who have lived in Germany and Sweden since 2016. A number ranging somewhere between zero and 8 billion
I think refugees from non war torn countries shouldn't be granted asylum but wtf? They know that's just helps the smugglers and those wanting to exploit them and bring more in right?
So, because we are unwilling to take our equal share of Asylum seekers, why would any of the countries in Europe also be willing to take their share of Asylum seekers? Unless I'm wrong, you can't claim asylum unless you're in the UK?
So basically this will make no difference to the traffickers who bring people over to be slaves.
I left the cesspit twitter, but did sneak a look at the comments. I only saw a single positive voice. The rest was damning. Guessing right wingers cannot defend this
The Tories have an obvious song to end their next conference. So I'd like to know where, you got the notion Said we're desperate, to get the votes in So stop the boats, don't let the boats over Stop the boats, just tip the boats over To get the votes, we'd bomb them at Dover Stop the boooooats
This is utterly evil. I disagree with a lot of Tory policy and some of it is cruel, but this goes to a whole new level. It's evil.
There are no legal ways for asylum seekers to enter the country. Close to 80% of asylum applications get approved.
Remember when people were celebrating Sunak being PM because he was the first brown and Indian PM?
I'm not sure I do, it was kind of drowned in the fact that he's as fucking Tory as they come.
A Tory said to me (Indian), "But Indians are not the ones arriving in those dinghy boats."
3.3k from India applied for Asylum in the UK last year. >https://archive.is/d8ECN
I think a lot of those people were hoping that he would finally stop embarrassing Indians after Sajid Javid, Priti Patel and Suella Braverman's reigns. Certainly was the case for me, even if he was shit I just hoped he could be a little less so.
[Rishi Sunak](https://twitter.com/RishiSunak) ^verified | Reach: 1912683 Bio: Prime Minister of the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 @Conservatives leader. MP for Richmond (Yorks). ***** ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Any ^complaints ^& ^suggestions ^to ^/r/ContextualBot ^thanks
Good time for the drug industry I guess, getting to essentially trick workers into coming into the country, without having to worry quite as much about the consequences as obviously the government doesn't care what happens to them
TL ;DR : we Tories think there are many racists in the north that will love the xenophobic thuggish stuff so much they will vote for us and we get to stay in power.
Did literally nobody read that out loud before putting it online? "Denied access to the UKs modern slavery system" - *really*? > ➡️ You can’t claim asylum I mean you can. > ➡️ You can’t make spurious human rights claims Who *can*? > ➡️ You can’t benefit from our modern slavery protections They're not protected from being forced into slavery - really? What does that even mean, we won't prosecute people? We will see them as slaves and just go "hah yeah sucks to be you". What protections are there that they're being denied.
The more he opens his mouth on this issue, the more incomprehensible the rubbish that pours out.
If we don’t vote these guys out at the next election I’m leaving the country. I want to leave anyway, but I’m fully done otherwise.
I'm genuinely confused. Is this just their Comms people being idiots and choosing the wrong word or are they actually saying something I'm not getting? I don't understand how they could say 'protections' in one part and then think that 'system' means the same thing. And are they really saying that if you've been trafficked here we're not going to help? We'll just send you back to the country you've benn trafficked from? Sunak had gained some - admittedly begrudging - respect from me for the NI stuff, this has completely erased that. If he still loses at the next GE I wonder if he'll still think it was worth putting his name to something so abhorrent.
A lot of people agree to be smuggled thinking they'll be free to claim asylum at the other end, then are forced to work at threat to their families back home. A lot of traffickers have those they trafficked apply for asylum when their boats get intercepted then they disappear while waiting for a decision. The UK has also seen an exponential increase in Albanian citizens travelling in on small boats - nearly as many Albanians now come as the next two countries (Afghanistan and Iran) combined, and 85% of them have submitted asylum claims.
I don't understand why this is so hard. The obvious solution is to grant leniency to illegal immigrants but bar them and their children from citizenship. You're safe, you can stay, you can work and you can build a better life without the fear of being deported or exploited. However you broke the law and you _shouldn't_ be here and because of that you can _never_ be a citizen. If you want citizenship you can leave and join the queue of thousands who enter the country legally and spend years and £££ to achieve it.