This migrant problem is going to let Reform in isn’t it?

[EvangelicalAboutButteredToast]

Honestly it’s such a bloody nightmare. Reform are making a total hash of local government from what I’ve read, putting teenagers in charge of whole departments with no relevant experience. What are they going to do if they are elected to run a country!!!! I’m honestly terrified. Labour need to be seen to be actively doing something to quell the far-right momentum that’s gaining traction from ordinary folk. I’m amazed at the average, usually pretty sensible people around me who are now telling me they are going to vote Reform.

there was an interview I saw yesterday where the minister said that thousands of people were being deported regularly. The interviewer asked why there were no videos of this and she said there could be. Well let’s see it! It would absolutely help.

Near to where I live a 12 year old has been raped by a migrants who allegedly came over on a dinghy. Of course people are angry. These people should be sent back immediately. It's almost always boats full of males. Reform will stop these boats by pulling the UK out of the ECHR and creating a UK Bill of Rights.

Pulling the UK out of the ECHR? Polls have shown that 70% of people do not want this. We are already a polarised society and this would create even more division.
The following are some potential effects of leaving:

Loss of Access to the European Court of Human Rights
UK citizens would no longer be able to take human rights cases to the Strasbourg Court after exhausting domestic remedies.This removes a key layer of external accountability for the UK government.

Undermining the Human Rights Act (1998)
The Human Rights Act (HRA) incorporates the ECHR into UK law. Leaving the ECHR would almost certainly require repealing or significantly rewriting the HRA. Courts could no longer interpret UK laws in line with ECHR rights, reducing protections.

Impact on Devolved Administrations
The ECHR is embedded in the Good Friday Agreement (Northern Ireland), and in the legal frameworks of Scotland and Wales. Withdrawal could breach the Good Friday Agreement and lead to constitutional tensions, possibly encouraging calls for independence.

Breaching International Agreements
The Good Friday Agreement and some aspects of the UK–EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement assume continued adherence to the ECHR. Leaving may be viewed as a breach of international law or undermine trust in UK treaty commitments.

Impact on EU Relations
The ECHR is not part of the EU, but EU agreements with non-member countries often require compliance with it. Leaving the ECHR could damage UK–EU cooperation on:
• Data sharing
• Criminal justice
• Extradition (e.g. the UK’s replacement for the European Arrest Warrant)

Reputation and Soft Power
The UK has historically played a leading role in promoting human rights. Withdrawal could damage the UK’s global image as a defender of the rule of law and human rights. It could align the UK more closely with countries like Russia or Belarus, which are not part of the ECHR.

Impact on Individuals
Reduced Legal Protections
Rights such as:
•Freedom from torture (Article 3)
•Right to a fair trial (Article 6)
•Right to privacy (Article 8)
•Protection from discrimination (Article 14)
could be weakened or harder to enforce.

Increased Executive Power
With less judicial oversight, government decisions may face fewer legal checks, especially in sensitive areas like:
• Immigration and asylum
• Policing and surveillance
• Prisoner rights

Polarisation and Division
Leaving the ECHR would likely deepen political divides both within Parliament and across the UK public. It may become a focal point in broader debates about sovereignty, Brexit, and judicial overreach.

Devolution and Independence Movements
Leaving could inflame support for Scottish independence and Irish reunification, especially if people feel their rights are being eroded.

What worked in Australia? deportations to Nauru OR the "Turnback/Take back" policy?
Most likely a combination.....

Until the turnback policy took place, deportations made no difference to numbers arriving, in fact, they went up.

So if you want a deterrent and yes i agree there needs to be one, it will need to be able to deport the numbers arriving and of those here.....

So a few 100 will not work in the first instance, if the policy worked, then yes numbers would be v small but we need to get to that point first, which means a country willing to accept 1000s within the first year.

Now, can you name such a country?

@Alexandra2001 surely it’s only to be expected that the deportation policy would involve a lag? All significant policies do, particularly in areas such as these where illegal boat journeys to Australia are saved for and arranged months of not years in advance.

If turn back on its own worked (or any other aspect of the policy for that matter) why did they persist with the hugely expensive and controversial deportation plan?

It’s been well established that Rwanda were willing to take numbers in a sufficient number to act as a workable deterrent.

It’d be fast now. Traffickers spread information like wildfire on SM and people using their services share it too.

My answer to the pp is the same as yours. An effective deterrent such as Aus would keep numbers low enough to use Rwanda.

Funny how countries like Poland and Hungary manage to tell the ECHR to get stuffed. Even the Scandi nations now.

Our own weakness is the problem.

All international agreements come down to negotiation. Membership of ECHR certainly isn’t the only way to make deals - reaching agreement based on our domestic laws might take some discussion, but certainly isn’t any kind of blocker.

We are as you say leaders in human rights and have our own laws which guarantee freedom from discrimination etc. That's enough.

As for soft power, do you really think that countries who use this to justify their own actions (which fall significantly lower than what's required by our domestic laws, not only ECHR) would change their behaviour based on our membership or not? That's rather... naive.

Increased executive power: yes. That's the whole point. Judges and human rights organisations should not be able to override political choices.

Polarisation: you're having a laugh! It's the current situation which is ripping our country apart. It can't continue.

Membership of EHCR has brought some benefits, but it's a question of whether the benefits justify the costs (financial and social). If the government can't find a way to operate successfully within EHCR in our current global world - with control of immigration and crime in particular - then we will have to come out.

@EasternStandard good point. It’s also interesting that Australia’s policy of offshore processing was scaled back by the Labor government and then reinstated in 2012 by another Labor government, so it’s had a pretty good test of its efficacy.

I'd leave ECHR because its become a criminals charter. But its not a catch all solution. Activist lawyers and liberal judges will still lead our politicians and civil servants by the nose.

Of course there is a lag.... hence the need to take large numbers initially.

Deportations carried on because not all boats intercepted bt their policy required almost 100% compliance and both policies.....

No, Rwanda said 5000 over 5 years, 300 in the first year....Look at the accommodation built? just 257 units, only 1/3rd for migrants....... so the numbers weren't high enough.... its basic... if just 2% of migrants crossing are deported, thats a big enough reason to carrying on crossing.

150 have drowned or feared to be, crossing into Yemen yesterday, it will not stop them, if death wont, then a 2% risk of deportation will not either.

Australia turned back or deported almost all migrants.

We come back to the facts, if it were easy, countries like Italy with right Govts would have done it by now.

You've hit the nail on the head increased executive power. A Reform government would have control of immigration and return boats to wherever they came from. You ignored the part of my post stating Reform would create a UK Bill of Rights with pretty much all of the other other rights copied and pasted in. Just leaving the UK free to refusing the boats. Are you trying to suggest 70 percent of UK world not want to stop these boats? If so you are deluded. Why do you think Reform has become so popular?

Well let's at least try @Alexandra2001 If Rwanda as originally set up isn't sufficient, then we can increase numbers.

@Alexandra2001 where’s the evidence to suggest that deporting 300 illegal immigrants crossing the channel in one year to Rwanda wouldn’t be a sufficient deterrent? Bearing in mind they are setting off from France.

I don’t mind if people advocate for both policies, if that’s what you’re after.

You cannot make Rwanda or anyone else take larger numbers, they do not want large numbers of migrants in their country either.

Rwanda already has an unemployment rate of 11%....

So they agreed just 300 in the first year, we had 1000 cross in ONE day recently....

As pp said, there would be a lag, so we would need Rwanda to build accommodation for many 1000s initially.

So no one can suggest a country willing......

Yep it’s been around for a while. It had opposition, similar to here maybe. But now it’s bipartisan, politicians won’t run on overturning anything because it works.

You are still doing this 1000 a day thing. People explain the low numbers with the Aus system then you revert in the next post.

I wouldn’t trust Farage and Reform an inch to replace everything in a British Rights bill! It wouldn’t be internationally recognised. What about the GFA? That would take years and years to renegotiate and do you really want a return to the troubles in Ireland?
What about the majority of people who don’t want this? It would create massive dissent in the population.

Rwanda also went into negotiations with Italy. They seem pretty willing. For a price, of course - but might still be good value for us.

You suggested the Falklands. That's rather politically sensitive, but we do have some islands with very low population in the Atlantic...

.... nope, numbers wouldn't be low to start with, 300 in a year isn't going to deter 500 to 1000 per day... why would it?

The vast majority, know they are staying in the UK.

You just keep going on about Australia, but completely ignore that the UK doesn't have a handy off shore Island and that until they used "Turnback" numbers kept going up.....

For people to be deterred, the majority have to, initially, be deported, once the deterrent kicks in, then of course, numbers drop BUT you need that initial capacity.... 300 in a year isn't that.

So Italy, is looking at 3000 PER MONTH to Albania..... that shows the scale of the problem and deterrent needed!

How can you repeat the same thing in every post at this point?

@AzurePandahas answered you on numbers, others have too.

The location has been said a few posts ago, how are you missing it?

You do realise that i don't have to agree with you? anymore than you with me....

esp when you cannot say which country and when all you do is, on every thread say "But Australia..."

Completely ignoring their policy was totally different and they had political geography on their side, Nauru/PND economically dependent on Aus, so couldn't say no!

Italy sees 3000 per month as a deterrent, you see 300 in a year.....

Can you scroll back to where I and others said Rwanda?

I know Labour scrapped it which might cost them the next GE but it is posted clearly.

Can you see the answer? If you can you can stop asking yes?

What do people who don’t like the Danish and Australian models suggest?

Just give up? Pretend it’s not happening?

Also the reference to Italy is still based on a misunderstanding. They are not proposing the Aus system, it’s just processing.

There’s so much but numbers, but where, on every thread and it’s been answered every time.