Is the Government’s ‘small boats bill’ already holed below the waterline?

We voted to take back control, but European judges will still rule in secret against the UK

Montage © Facts4EU.Org 2023

All but lawyers and ‘no borders’ extremists want to “stop the boats” – who will win?

Yesterday in Parliament the Home Secretary introduced the much-heralded “Illegal Migration Bill”, designed to stop the ever-growing number of illegal migrants crossing the English Channel from the safe country of France in order to claim asylum in the United Kingdom.

In doing so, Suella Braverman was forced to take the unusual step of announcing that the Bill cannot be guaranteed to comply with the Government’s Human Rights legislation and in particular the European Convention on Human Rights. Here is the opening to the Bill:-

“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.”

It is very rare for any Government Bill to declare up front that it may not comply with the United Kingdom’s obligations under international treaties. The advice the Government receives from its legal officers is traditionally held to be confidential. In this case it seems clear that this advice was that the Bill does not or may not comply with international law. Or – more specifically – European law.

The Government plans to take on the ECHR

The Government’s plan seems to be to amend the ECHR or to disapply certain of its provisions, to allow the UK to pursue the policies laid out in the new Bill. Here is what Suella Braverman told the Commons yesterday:-

“Mr. Speaker, I won’t address the bill’s full legal complexities today. Some of the nation’s finest legal minds have been – and continue to be – involved in its development.
“But I must say this, the Rule 39 process that enabled the Strasbourg court to block at the last minute, flights to Rwanda, after our courts had refused injunctions, was deeply flawed. Our ability to control our borders cannot be held back by an opaque process, conducted late at night, with no chance to make our case or even appeal decisions.

“That’s why we’ve initiated discussions in Strasbourg, to ensure their blocking orders meet a basic natural justice standard - one that prevents abuse of Rule 39s to thwart removal. And it’s why the bill will set out the conditions for the UK’s future compliance for such orders. Other countries share our dilemma and will understand the justice of our position.
“Our approach is robust and novel, which is why we can’t make a definitive statement of compatibility under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act. Of course the UK will always seek to uphold international law and I am confident that this bill is compatible with international law.”
- Home Secretary Suella Braverman, House of Commons, 07 mar 2023

Torpedoed on first contact with the enemy?

The European Convention on Human Rights came into force 70 years ago this coming September. Drafted (mostly by British lawyers) in response to the appalling abuses of human rights across Europe under the tyranny of Nazi Germany, the Convention was a document of its time.

In 70 years life has moved on. While many of the provisions of the Convention apply today, it was not drafted with any expectation of the current immigration crisis, nor of the ways in which it has been exploited by immigration lawyers to thwart what the Home Secretary refers to as “natural justice”.

It is not possible for the UK to apply for a derogation from any provisions of the ECHR. The Convention’s wording states:

“Article 15 – Derogation in time of emergency”
“1. In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.”
- ECHR Treaty text

There is absolutely no possibility that the current small boats crisis would fall under this provision. This is why the Government appears to be seeking to amend the ECHR. With 46 countries as signatories, this will be a lengthy process and is likely to take years.

Observations

This is a problem created by the EU

The first and most obvious comment to make is that the illegal migrant problem would be solved at a stroke if the EU agreed to take back its illegal migrants immediately. The people reaching English shores have typically passed through many safe EU countries – apparently unchallenged – where they could have claimed asylum. They have then spent weeks or months in France where they could have applied for asylum.

This a problem which the EU has refused to engage with. It shows absolutely no signs of wanting to shoulder its responsibilities. Just as the EU has refused to obey its obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK should also play hard-ball. The Government should suspend all payments to the EU until it takes back its illegal migrants.

Solution

Given that the Government seems too weak to stand up to the EU, there is an alternative. As always, the Brexit Facts4EU.Org team looks for practical solutions. In this case the answer is relatively simple.

The UK should apply for an urgent derogation from the ECHR in respect of illegal migrants. When this is refused, the UK Government should announce its immediate withdrawal from the ECHR and should amend the UK’s Human Rights Act (which incorporates ECHR law) as well as amending the Modern Slavery Act which was rushed through the Commons by Theresa May in her last act as Prime Minister.

In tandem, a communications initiative should be launched by the Foreign Office worldwide, to explain to the world that the UK is still adhering to almost all of the provisions of the ECHR (no torture, etc) and has only been forced to remove itself because of needing to solve one problem urgently. This is clearly a problem which was never anticipated by the founding fathers back in 1950-1953 when the ECHR was drafted.

Hey presto, problem solved.

Provided the FCDO does its job, (admittedly the riot act would have to read to all its senior officials to work as if their jobs depended on it), then world opinion would, we believe, be sympathetic.

It will still take months before the message seeps through to migrants seeking to enter the UK illegally. Perhaps, however, when those who are deported start sending Instagram videos back home, showing their lives in Rwanda, then the cynical and deadly trade in human beings by people traffickers will stop.

We must get reports like this out there

Reports like the one above take far longer to research, write and produce than many people realise. If they were easy, readers would see other organisations also producing these daily.

However, there’s little point in the Facts4EU.Org team working long hours, seven days-a-week, if we lack the resources to promote them effectively – to the public, to MPs, and to the media. This is where you come in, dear reader.

Facts4EU.Org needs you today

We are a 'not for profit' team (we make a loss) and any payment goes towards the actual work, not plush London offices, lunch or taxi expenses, or other luxuries of some organisations.

We badly need more of our thousands of readers to become members, to support this work. Could this be you, today? It's quick and easy, we give you a choice of two highly secure payment providers, and we do NOT ask you for further support if you pay once. We just hope you keep supporting us. Your membership stays anonymous unless you tell us otherwise.

Please don't assume that other people will keep us going - we don't receive enough to survive and we need your help today. Could you help us? We rely 100% on public contributions from readers like you.

If you believe in a fully-free, independent, and sovereign United Kingdom, please join now by clicking on one of the links below or you can use our Support page here. You will receive a personal, friendly ‘thank you’ from a member of our team within 24 hours. Thank you.

[ Sources: UK Parliament | ECHR ] Politicians and journalists can contact us for details, as ever.

Brexit Facts4EU.Org, Wed 08 Mar 2023

Click here to go to our news headlines

Please scroll down to COMMENT on the above article.
And don't forget to actually post your message after you have previewed it!

Something to say about this? Scroll down for reader comments

Since before the EU Referendum, Brexit Facts4EU.Org
has been the most prolific researcher and publisher of Brexit facts in the world.

Supported by MPs, MEPs, & other groups, our work has impact.

We think facts matter. Please donate today, so that we can continue to ensure a clean Brexit is finally delivered.

Any credit card user

Quick One-off

From £5 - £1,000

Monthly

From £3 per month

Paypal Users Only - Choose amount first

Quick One-off

Monthly

PLEASE NOTE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT : You can write your comment under any existing comments below. After you have clicked to preview your comment, you MUST then click on the CAPTCHA system and send you comment, for it to be published. Thank you!

Reader Comments 7

1. Have You Wondered , Wednesday, March 08, 2023, 08:09:

.
Have You Wondered that the UK (and many other nations) appear to be getting bound up in laws, regulation and 'red tape' that come to the point of being so entangled that we cannot see the way out of the maze, possibly enabling situations the well intentioned regulations were meant to prevent?
.
Does this demonstrate the chasm between a Court of Law and a Court of Justice?
.

2. Have You Wondered , Wednesday, March 08, 2023, 10:30:

.
Would a derogation or withdrawal from the ECHR affect the Belfast Agreement?
.
Would it be acceptable to keep the ECHR applicable within the Belfast Agreement since NI has a few different laws (?) from the rest of the UK anyway?
.

3. Northern Muppet , Wednesday, March 08, 2023, 11:26:

The government have absolutely NO INTENTION of curbing the mass movement across the channel. They simply want something to point to in the run up to the next election to give the impression that they do.
.
Who else is going to pay the pensions of Buster's ageing 'Brexitists'??
.
Where is Buster, by the way?? Do you think it's moved to Brussels?

4. Major Graham Lear , Wednesday, March 08, 2023, 12:15:

The easy way to stop all this is once they land, to have a holding bay where they are kept for the day until there are enough to fill a coach. You confiscate their phones You then fill that coach and take them under escort to an RAF base where a C-17 Globemaster III is waiting. You then load them up and you film them being loaded. You then let the flight take off and then hand the film over to the news media. while in the air you then give them back their phones four to five hours later they land in Rwanda. the BBC news shows what you have done 300 have been shipped to Rwanda within 18 hours of them landing in the UK, the word now gets out what you have done and that's the end of the boats coming over as NOW they know what awaits them. It's cost-effective as the RAF like all our military services works 24/7 and it's good for the pilots and crew as they get more airtime. Will they get flack for it? Of course, no gain without pain. Then you go after the Lawyers and the charities, especially Care4Calais who undoubtedly are helping people smugglers. the first thing you do with Care4Calais is suspend their charity status while you investigate, them a nice strung-out five years investigation should do nicely, for the Lawyers you take away their funding and investigate them for people smuggling. You have gotta be inventive, and be as sneaky and devious as they are.
As for the ECHR who cares they did not mind the EU giving the UN 10 MILLION to send refugees to Rwanda and other places, so we hit the ECHR with that if they dare to make waves, and we threaten to publicly humiliate them, every one of the judges who gave the go-ahead, Because believe me the EU would have run to the ECHR before they made their move to get permission. and we also threaten the UN with public humiliation, because if it's against international law to send refugees to Rwanda the EU and the UN and the ECHR have all entered into a conspiracy to break the law. So F the lot of them

5. Have You Wondered , Wednesday, March 08, 2023, 13:27:

.
4. Major Graham Lear "As for the ECHR who cares they did not mind the EU giving the UN 10 MILLION to send refugees to Rwanda"
.
Indeed - forgotten about that. 2017!
"This Rwanda initiative built on the example of the earlier ETM grant for Niger, through which more than 2,900 refugees and asylum seekers were sent from Libya starting in 2017." facts4eu. org news 2022 apr globalist hypocrisy
.
"Other member states are also calling for reception centres for migrants to be built in a third country such as Africa. "
Rwanda?! EU about to dump ECHR?
Search: tatewatch analyses 2023 pushbacks migration policy and returns at the core of eu support for authoritarian regimes
Contravention of ECHR?
.
Search: politico newsletter brussels playbook euco deals on fences funds zelenskyys success rate sikorskis uae gig
"Nehammer’s telling, this means the EU is de facto funding border fences, even if it says it’s not. "
Contravention of ECHR?
.
Did someone mention 'Broken Treaties' ? !
.

6. Ashley Great Britain , Thursday, March 09, 2023, 08:21:

4 Major Lear.
Yes those are good ideas and there are many that will solve this problem.
The fact is though that the Government has its hands conveniently tied and actually don't want to stop the boats anyway.
All this talk about the immigration bill is just talk to pretend they will do something.
Nothing will come of this because the Government are weak and infiltrated.
Sadly
The boats will keep coming.

7. Consistent Illogical Inconsistency , Monday, March 13, 2023, 20:45:

The Illegal Migration Bill is illegal? Only in Brexit times do such situations even exist.
No wonder there is so much Lineker talk - no one wants to talk about this.
4. Are you sure that being "sneaky & devious" while trying to circumvent the ECHR with an illegal Illegal Migration Bill is your
recommended course of action?

Add comment:

Please note: Your email address is never published unless you choose to enter it.