Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think it's time to leave the ECHR?

798 replies

Sausagenbacon · 16/07/2026 20:05

www.thejc.com/news/uk/gazan-family-refugee-status-asylum-rejection-gwsq2c8b

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
ChunkyMonkey36 · 17/07/2026 21:42

Daafdjdnd · 17/07/2026 21:31

Aren't there numerous other nations they can go? Perhaps nearer

Yeah I think we’ve heard that one.

We did have the Dublin Regulation that meant we could transfer asylum seekers back to an EU country they’d arrived in before us, in some circumstances.

Guess what got rid of that?

Daafdjdnd · 17/07/2026 21:43

ChunkyMonkey36 · 17/07/2026 21:42

Yeah I think we’ve heard that one.

We did have the Dublin Regulation that meant we could transfer asylum seekers back to an EU country they’d arrived in before us, in some circumstances.

Guess what got rid of that?

@EasternStandard rebuts this so well

EasternStandard · 17/07/2026 21:43

ChunkyMonkey36 · 17/07/2026 21:42

Yeah I think we’ve heard that one.

We did have the Dublin Regulation that meant we could transfer asylum seekers back to an EU country they’d arrived in before us, in some circumstances.

Guess what got rid of that?

Very limited and we took more than we returned.

ChunkyMonkey36 · 17/07/2026 21:47

EasternStandard · 17/07/2026 21:43

Very limited and we took more than we returned.

Better than the zero Brexit gives us though, right?

From what I can see it was around 10-15% of Dublin transfer requests were granted (2019), but if 0.42% is lots then surely we’d go back to accepting the 10-15% the agreement offered us?

Clavinova · 17/07/2026 21:47

Lavender14 · 17/07/2026 09:52

Can you not see the difficulty it creates when you've groups of people using different legal routes into a country to make a life for themselves (as we are all entitled to do). And then creating a list of who's the most deserving?

It creates a capitalist system where we essentially monetise immigrants depending on what we get from them. And it means the most vulnerable people and particularly BAME individuals are at the bottom of the food chain. It creates a sense of 'validation' that people have the right to judge who has 'earnt' their right to be here but as we know from all the recent violence this is very susceptible to being tangled up in blatant racism. Because while some people may feel that only people who pay their way should be here, there are other people who feel there are too many working migrants as well. It's no coincidence that the recent violence where I live saw working migrants who had paid their way to be here legally burnt out of their homes. And yet polish migrants, Ukrainian refugees were fine... why do you think that was? They have the ability to walk down the street and not be immediately distinguished by their skin colour. We have people of colour who have been born here feeling more wary going out and about now for the same reason.

You cannot create a hierarchy of 'deserving' immigrants without upholding racist social structures. And therein lies the rub.

Yes there are conversations to be had about resources, but those conversations are happening because of political leaders screwing over the average working person consistently for many years. Asylum seeking individuals are being used as scapegoats to stop the public properly scrutinising government public spending. Its a very intentional and coordinated drive through media.

It's no coincidence that the recent violence where I live saw working migrants who had paid their way to be here legally burnt out of their homes. And yet polish migrants, Ukrainian refugees were fine... why do you think that was?

If you are referring to the recent violence in Northern Ireland, a young Ukrainian woman was forced out of her home as well. I am surprised you didn't see her interview.

EasternStandard · 17/07/2026 21:49

ChunkyMonkey36 · 17/07/2026 21:47

Better than the zero Brexit gives us though, right?

From what I can see it was around 10-15% of Dublin transfer requests were granted (2019), but if 0.42% is lots then surely we’d go back to accepting the 10-15% the agreement offered us?

In 2019 we took more than transferred

Under the Dublin III Regulation in 2019, the United Kingdom was a net recipient of asylum seekers, transferring 714 individuals into the country while transferring only 263 individuals out to other European nations

ChunkyMonkey36 · 17/07/2026 21:53

EasternStandard · 17/07/2026 21:49

In 2019 we took more than transferred

Under the Dublin III Regulation in 2019, the United Kingdom was a net recipient of asylum seekers, transferring 714 individuals into the country while transferring only 263 individuals out to other European nations

You’re right.

The last year it was a net negative was 2015. The year before the vote.

Anyone would think there was a link!

EasternStandard · 17/07/2026 21:57

ChunkyMonkey36 · 17/07/2026 21:53

You’re right.

The last year it was a net negative was 2015. The year before the vote.

Anyone would think there was a link!

It wasn’t ever high, it’s not high for any country,

The criteria is a high bar and the receiving countries can say no. Look up other transfers for Germany for example. No one was using the DA to resolve migration issues or to send people back en masse. For some reason the media spread heavily that it is possible.

It’s changing now anyway, not sure how that will pan out.

Daafdjdnd · 17/07/2026 22:12

A sovereign nation can simply should say "no" to deny entry to non citizens they find not desirable or not conducive to public good or simply not beneficial to the state.

Some may have exception a for special relationships like the UK has with the ROI. India has exemptions for the Nepalese and those from Bhutan.

But the under the Foreigners Act 1946, the Supreme Court of India has repeatedly ruled that the central government has an "unfettered sovereign right" to expel or deny entry to foreigners.

Clavinova · 17/07/2026 22:21

ChunkyMonkey36 · 17/07/2026 21:53

You’re right.

The last year it was a net negative was 2015. The year before the vote.

Anyone would think there was a link!

More likely to do with the fact that 850,000 asylum seekers entered the EU via Greece in 2015 - whilst Dublin returns to Greece were already suspended by the EU (due to poor conditions in the refugee camps). Then, in 2017, leading immigration solicitors, Duncan Lewis, said they intended to challenge any resumption of Dublin returns to Greece by the UK. Dublin litigations/appeals also increased generally due to the migrant crisis;

Dublin Regulations and the escalation of the migration crisis (28 January 2016)
Our firm is at the forefront of various litigations representing individuals and challenging removals to a number of countries such as Austria, Malta and Cyprus. We are currently running the lead cases on Bulgaria and Hungary.
https://www.duncanlewis.co.uk/publiclaw_news/Dublin_Regulations_and_the_escalation_of_the_migration_crisis_(28_January_2016).html

ChunkyMonkey36 · 17/07/2026 22:33

Daafdjdnd · 17/07/2026 22:12

A sovereign nation can simply should say "no" to deny entry to non citizens they find not desirable or not conducive to public good or simply not beneficial to the state.

Some may have exception a for special relationships like the UK has with the ROI. India has exemptions for the Nepalese and those from Bhutan.

But the under the Foreigners Act 1946, the Supreme Court of India has repeatedly ruled that the central government has an "unfettered sovereign right" to expel or deny entry to foreigners.

We’re not India.

And surely we’d need some kind of consensus of who these “undesirables” were.

We can’t just use your idea of only Canadians and the Swiss.

Daafdjdnd · 17/07/2026 22:53

ChunkyMonkey36 · 17/07/2026 22:33

We’re not India.

And surely we’d need some kind of consensus of who these “undesirables” were.

We can’t just use your idea of only Canadians and the Swiss.

Maybe we could be more like them on immigration laws. Giving the government the right to deny entry.

What nations we don't want. I mean the trump adminstration has a big list of 39 nations they restrict.

Limecar · 17/07/2026 23:19

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

SaySomethingMan · 18/07/2026 00:21

Clavinova · 17/07/2026 21:47

It's no coincidence that the recent violence where I live saw working migrants who had paid their way to be here legally burnt out of their homes. And yet polish migrants, Ukrainian refugees were fine... why do you think that was?

If you are referring to the recent violence in Northern Ireland, a young Ukrainian woman was forced out of her home as well. I am surprised you didn't see her interview.

One Ukrainian woman versus numerous non-white immigrants? Of course her case also matters but the non-white people were significantly affected. At first glance, it’s immediately assumed they’re non-Irish.

SuffolkSun · 18/07/2026 00:29

GasPanic · 17/07/2026 10:56

We should leave it and come up with a new framework that is right for us as a country.

The ECHR like most EU organisations is a fudge based on compromising between multiple states, and if any state has a need to change it they are pretty much screwed.

We can come up with something much better, even if we simply replicate it in the first instance and then change laws as required.

The ECHR under discussion here isn't an organisation.

Is it too much to expect that people discussing an issue actually bother to work out what the issue is before weighing in? Apparently, with a large part of the NN hoi polloi, it is.

SuffolkSun · 18/07/2026 00:32

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

SuffolkSun · 18/07/2026 00:39

KateSixer · 17/07/2026 15:13

Why shouldn't they? (I am not actually sure you are correct).

But anyway I can't spend more than 90 days in 180 in an EU country and I have a full UK passport.

Why should an asylum seeker from Sudan or anywhere else get the choice to live where they want?

Funnily enough, the international rules governing asylum are different to the rules the EU has created re 3rd country tourists visiting Schengen.

The PP you responded to was correct. A little bit of googling (obviously beyond you) would have told you that.

As for your "Waah, why do brown asylum seekers want to live in my country" - it tells us everything we need to know about you. None of it good.

SuffolkSun · 18/07/2026 00:49

inkognitha · 17/07/2026 15:54

And here we go with the colonial self-hatred as an excuse. It is not.

Britain has done a lot of wrong during its colonial past, really a lot, but it's not all what Britain is or has accomplished in its history. And it's far from being the only country or culture who has invaded or enslaved.

But it has put a stop to it, has actively regretted it since and has reflected upon its worst errors and crimes, generating the liberal, progressive, universalist, antiracist pro-human rights vision your views are directly coming from, probably during the course of a UK-funded education. Because you are no dissident, you didn't have to learn about the evils of colonialism in samizdats or read forbidden books in hiding. You come from a culture who has made big errors but has also been capable of facing them, including them in the public discourse, and even protecting by law its most ardent critics, like yourself.

Is it such a bad society for what it is now? Is it better elsewhere? Go criticise the Russian system or the North Korean one or Islam in Saudi Arabia, see how well they will take it.

And repairing fairly historical damage or solving structural inequity does not mean "Let's open all doors and you can all come and do whatever you want because our ancestors did the same to you 200y ago, so we don't have the right to criticise"

Especially when it applies to descendants who have not done anything directly.
Punished for the sins of their fathers, I destroyed yours, you can destroy mine, eye for an eye. That is vengeance, not justice, it's not fair, nor healing.

I am sure you don't hold contemporary Japanese or Germans responsible for WWII or the 3rd Reich, why can't you do the same for British people? Especially that you are the living embodiment that things have changed.

Or you don't want to accept it because it gives you an easy villain to blame, and it makes you feel all righteous to think you're the resistance against evil, rather than being boringly mainstream and a pure product of your environment?

That's a lot of words.

They don't mean very much, but there's a lot of them. Here's a prize for bothering to type them out.

Perhaps, when you mature slightly, you'll be able to answer the straightforward question: "did our colonisation of X country contribute to its current instability?" with an answer that's (a) relevant and (b) is coherent. But you get 10 points deducted for every thicko, meaningless, rightwing buzz phrase like "colonial self-hatred".

SuffolkSun · 18/07/2026 00:58

AutumnHazel · 17/07/2026 16:16

This 💯.

Besides, Israel / Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire historically, and the UK only stepped in in 1918 to avoid a power vacuum and chaos. We exited when we could in 1947, after the UN agreed borders for Israel and Palestine. To say that we are responsible for bloodshed in 2026 is preposterous

It's not the fault of posters on here that you appear to be unable to understand rather basic English, nor that you have a prediliction for inventing what posters think then arguing against it.

No one has said that the UK is responsible for bloodshed. What WAS mooted was whether previous colonisation has contributed to current instability. The nuanced difference in that, and the understanding that the issue is far more complex than right/wrong, good/bad, is obviously far too difficult for you to grasp. Sorry, but maybe stick to Take a Break in future.

Daafdjdnd · 18/07/2026 00:59

SuffolkSun · 18/07/2026 00:39

Funnily enough, the international rules governing asylum are different to the rules the EU has created re 3rd country tourists visiting Schengen.

The PP you responded to was correct. A little bit of googling (obviously beyond you) would have told you that.

As for your "Waah, why do brown asylum seekers want to live in my country" - it tells us everything we need to know about you. None of it good.

They might want to come here but it doesn't give them any inalienable right to come?

SuffolkSun · 18/07/2026 01:06

LuckyHazelFox · 17/07/2026 19:25

Putting Britain first is protecting our borders, defence and security. That is currently being hampered by not having British sovereignty.

Yawn.

The fact that numpties who don't know how UK law and the British Parliamentary system works, are still bleating on about "SoVrUnTEE" is laughable.

sunshinesuzey · 18/07/2026 01:10

Bridgertonisbest · 16/07/2026 20:31

How is it ridiculous, Gaza is a war zone!

good, I’m glad we were able to offer a safe haven for people that are living in fear and having their rights eroded daily.

There are sadly some people living in difficult situations. We cannot help them all and we cannot bring them all here.

If leaving the ECHR gives us more control over our borders then I'm all for it.

sunshinesuzey · 18/07/2026 01:13

Bridgertonisbest · 16/07/2026 21:06

Wow!

I genuinely cannot understand this mentality, they’re fellow human beings, they ARE our responsibility, particularly when we make money selling arms to the countries that bomb them.

What countries are you talking about?

We aren't responsible for every conflict in the world.

SuffolkSun · 18/07/2026 01:16

Daafdjdnd · 17/07/2026 22:12

A sovereign nation can simply should say "no" to deny entry to non citizens they find not desirable or not conducive to public good or simply not beneficial to the state.

Some may have exception a for special relationships like the UK has with the ROI. India has exemptions for the Nepalese and those from Bhutan.

But the under the Foreigners Act 1946, the Supreme Court of India has repeatedly ruled that the central government has an "unfettered sovereign right" to expel or deny entry to foreigners.

Why are you wittering on about India?

Why are you so ignorant about how UK immigration law, and UKBF, actually work in practice, despite claiming to have lived in the UK for 18 years?

Why, if you've lived in the UK for 18 years, are you so determined to shove down posters throats a race-based, discriminatory rhetoric rooted, it appears, in the far-right, ethnonationalist ideology of the Indian BJP, which is completely alien to traditional British cultural mores?

sunshinesuzey · 18/07/2026 01:19

placemats · 16/07/2026 21:13

This 💯
It's not possible to leave the ECHR without breaking up the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

It would also compromise the Common Travel Agreement that's been in place since the 1920s, over a century of free travel between the Islands of Great Britain and Ireland. The CTA allows also those citizens to work and travel freely.

eta removing the UK from the ECHR would break international law regarding the Good Friday Agreement.

Edited

That's not correct.

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/echr-withdrawal-would-not-imperil-good-friday-agreement/5124316.article

https://policyexchange.org.uk/publication/the-echr-and-the-belfast-good-friday-agreement/