Priti Patel the new Home Sec wants to hang crims, lots of them.

Or we opt out.
It's is regarded as 'erga omnes' under international law and a customary practice so it would still apply even if we withdrew from the treaty. As with much of International constitutional law, treaties or International agreements (same thing, btw) are often codification of accepted and customary practice.

As a corollary, let's say China withdrew from International treaties governing, say, genocide, they would still be breaking IHL if they committed such acts.
 
Last edited:
It's is regarded as 'erga omnes' under international law and a customary practice so it would still apply even if we withdrew from the treaty. As with much of International constitutional law, treaties or International agreements (same thing, btw) are often codification. Of accepted and customary practice.

As a corollary, let's say China withdrew from International treaties governing, say, genocide, they would still be breaking IHL if they committed such acts.

That would be an interesting conversation to have with President Winnie the Pooh:

1637858832136.jpeg
 

giatttt

War Hero
Just one slight flaw. Where overseas? Which country will be willing to take them?
I think they've already suggested Turkey who say they are full with the EU lot, Albania has said no chance.

Unless we have some friendly country that would be willing to take them, process them, house them, feed them and so on and at what cost? I think I read the Albanian solution would have been 100k per person and still they "angrily" said on yer bike.

Suggestions?
West Falkland has some attraction
 
Not one of which is a major problem.
I think you'll find that getting a country to accept them may be a teensy bit problematic in practice if not in theory. There ain't a long list of states knocking on the door of the FCDO offering to help. The alternative of picking an "empty quarter" and dumping them there is likely to require a fair amount of infrastructure investment and some form of legal ruling that we're not jeopardising their safety in doing so (water, shelter, food etc not necessarily abundant in these places. One reason why they're unclaimed.) Non-refoulement in your ECHR excerpt might just be relevant.

No where does my suggested course of action fall foul, and is well within those boundaries.
See refoulement.

3: There's always chancers, and short of going all Roman on them and branding them on the forehead with a K, there's not much that can be done, apart from apply existing protections against such.
However, I suspect the new immigration bill is aimed at sorting these problems out.
Yes. I hope so. But the actual fact is that the legal industry is currently able to run rings round the HO, because of the flexibility of the legislation.

All of which reinforces the point I continually try to make - the only way to stop the migrant wave is to reverse the perception that once here, you never get removed. The only way to do that is to reframe the law.

All this nonsense about turning back boats at sea and renouncing SOLAS will result only in innocent people (typically BF staff and RNLI volunteers) being liable for prosecution or civil class action brought by activist groups.
 
I think you'll find that getting a country to accept them may be a teensy bit problematic in practice if not in theory. There ain't a long list of states knocking on the door of the FCDO offering to help. The alternative of picking an "empty quarter" and dumping them there is likely to require a fair amount of infrastructure investment and some form of legal ruling that we're not jeopardising their safety in doing so (water, shelter, food etc not necessarily abundant in these places. One reason why they're unclaimed.) Non-refoulement in your ECHR excerpt might just be relevant.


See refoulement.


Yes. I hope so. But the actual fact is that the legal industry is currently able to run rings round the HO, because of the flexibility of the legislation.

All of which reinforces the point I continually try to make - the only way to stop the migrant wave is to reverse the perception that once here, you never get removed. The only way to do that is to reframe the law.

All this nonsense about turning back boats at sea and renouncing SOLAS will result only in innocent people (typically BF staff and RNLI volunteers) being liable for prosecution or civil class action brought by activist groups.
Which would lead to the same result as withdrawing BF and lifeboats.
 
Unless it's changed since my last voyage, traffic in the Channel is directed into northbound and southbound lanes simply to avoid multiple collisions. Irrespective of SOLAS, which is covered by North Sea coastal nations' various lifeboats and SAR choppers, any ship's master swerving across lanes to answer a distress call is begging to risk his ship and all aboard. It would come as no surprise to discover that ship owners and insurers advise masters to turn a Nelsonian eye to migrant boats.

You should let @endure know.

He'll grass 'em up toot sweet.
 
Re Patel's offer to put British police on patrol along French beaches in mid winter, have the police been canvassed for their views?
Of course they haven't. it'll happen in two years time, maybe, based on current speed of action

edit
That's assuming there are some legal shennanigans allowing them to use thier powers abroad
 
No, but the French have and they quite understandably told her to fúck off.

Of course they have; they can't shovel them on to their shonky 11-mile limit rubber dinghies and into les mains de les rosbifs stupide fast enough.

Alors easy! Le cha-ching!
 

endure

GCM
Would that be because they don't want to be caught waving goodbye to another boatload of migrants ?
No it's because they don't want warranted British officers with the power of arrest on French sovereign territory in the same way that I assume the UK government would be uncomfortable with the Gendarmerie arresting people in Kent.
 

Latest Threads

Top