Off Topic The Politics Thread

[Chaz]

Ok. The biggest inaccuracy is about 'freedom of movement'. The UK can exclude whoever they want, irrespective of nationality. Schengen countries have no idea who comes and goes, but we do. If we want to deny entry at our border to an EU subject, we can do just that. Our borders are OUR borders, and we choose, not the EU. Our remaining in the EU won't change that.

As for fundamental principles, the Euro is a fundamental principle, and which we will not be adopting. Same with free movement. That does not mean a guarantee of admittance if the UK Border Agency decides not.

As I said. Inaccuracies.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Ok. The biggest inaccuracy is about 'freedom of movement'. The UK can exclude whoever they want, irrespective of nationality. Schengen countries have no idea who comes and goes, but we do. If we want to deny entry at our border to an EU subject, we can do just that. Our borders are OUR borders, and we choose, not the EU. Our remaining in the EU won't change that.

As for fundamental principles, the Euro is a fundamental principle, and which we will not be adopting. Same with free movement. That does not mean a guarantee of admittance if the UK Border Agency decides not.

As I said. Inaccuracies.

If the denial of access is challenged, which of course it can be, what is the ultimate tribunal for hearing the appeal - our Supreme Court or the European Court of Justice?

 

[Chaz]

People can take ANY legal decision to the ECHR, and overturning a decision on border controls is not a common thing. That's got nothing to do with the fact that we can deny access under current law.

 

[TheBigDipper]

People can take ANY legal decision to the ECHR, and overturning a decision on border controls is not a common thing. That's got nothing to do with the fact that we can deny access under current law.

From memory, the European Court of Human Rights is something we'll still be part of even if we leave the EU. I could be wrong, though...

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

From memory, the European Court of Human Rights is something we'll still be part of even if we leave the EU. I could be wrong, though...

You're right, but this issue has nothing to do with the ECHR. Chaz is confused as usual. The EU enforces the rights of the citizens of its members through the ECJ. This court, not the UK institutions, is the final arbiter of whether there has been a breach of EU law by another member state

 

[Chaz]

You're right, but this issue has nothing to do with the ECHR. Chaz is confused as usual. The EU enforces the rights of the citizens of its members through the ECJ. This court, not the UK institutions, is the final arbiter of whether there has been a breach of EU law by another member state

If we were not opted out of Schengen, then I might reluctantly agree. However, as we are, it's not a case of EU law, it's a case of what a person believes their rights to be. That's why any appeal against denial of entry into the UK would be sent to the ECHR. So no - I'm not at all confused, although I'm thinking that you might be.

 

[Chaz]

From memory, the European Court of Human Rights is something we'll still be part of even if we leave the EU. I could be wrong, though...

You are right, as far as I have been able to establish. Therefore the situation won't change one iota either way. We can still bar people from entering if we have just cause, and they can still take it to the ECHR if they feel their rights have been infringed.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

If we were not opted out of Schengen, then I might reluctantly agree. However, as we are, it's not a case of EU law, it's a case of what a person believes their rights to be. That's why any appeal against denial of entry into the UK would be sent to the ECHR. So no - I'm not at all confused, although I'm thinking that you might be.

If there is a possibility that the UK has breached the right of an EU citizen to live and work in the UK, then that is most definitely a matter of EU law. The EU institutions guard that fundamental right jealously, and would adjudicate if an EU citizen claimed he or she had been unfairly treated

 

[Chaz]

We will continue to disagree. Denying someone access at the UK Border isn't illegal. Therefore it's not a matter for the ECJ, it's a matter of what a person believes their rights are. Therefore, ECHR.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

We will continue to disagree. Denying someone access at the UK Border isn't illegal. Therefore it's not a matter for the ECJ, it's a matter of what a person believes their rights are. Therefore, ECHR.

You carry on misleading yourself, mate

 

[sb_73]

I've looked it up. We can deny entry to EU citizens for public policy, public security and public health reasons. We can deny the right to settle (I.e residency) to EU citizens who don't work and do not have the means to support themselves. In certain circumstances appeals can be referred to the ECJ, but the UK Supreme Court has no obligation to accept the decision. The U.K. Supreme Court does have a responsibility to uphold the principles of the European Convention of Human Rights, because we are signatories (indeed we are founder members, from 1947, of the Council of Europe, of which the ECHR is a part), but again individual decisions of the ECHR are not necessarily binding on us. Source: UK Supreme Court website.

It has virtually nothing to do with Schengen. Apparently Belgium denies entry and deports a lot of EU citizens.

Theresa May is the only one I have heard saying we should leave the ECHR.

 

[QPR999]

I've looked it up. We can deny entry to EU citizens for public policy, public security and public health reasons. We can deny the right to settle (I.e residency) to EU citizens who don't work and do not have the means to support themselves. In certain circumstances appeals can be referred to the ECJ, but the UK Supreme Court has no obligation to accept the decision. The U.K. Supreme Court does have a responsibility to uphold the principles of the European Convention of Human Rights, because we are signatories (indeed we are founder members, from 1947, of the Council of Europe, of which the ECHR is a part), but again individual decisions of the ECHR are not necessarily binding on us. Source: UK Supreme Court website.

It has virtually nothing to do with Schengen. Apparently Belgium denies entry and deports a lot of EU citizens.

Theresa May is the only one I have heard saying we should leave the ECHR.

I think it's covered fairly comprehensively here ... http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/30/contents

I haven't had time to read it all though.

 

[kiwiqpr]

Will anything change with the way we deal with non EU illeagals

Will the UK be able to send them back to France once they hop out of the backs of trucks seeing as that is where they came from

 

[Chaz]

You carry on misleading yourself, mate

I've looked it up. We can deny entry to EU citizens for public policy, public security and public health reasons. We can deny the right to settle (I.e residency) to EU citizens who don't work and do not have the means to support themselves. In certain circumstances appeals can be referred to the ECJ, but the UK Supreme Court has no obligation to accept the decision. The U.K. Supreme Court does have a responsibility to uphold the principles of the European Convention of Human Rights, because we are signatories (indeed we are founder members, from 1947, of the Council of Europe, of which the ECHR is a part), but again individual decisions of the ECHR are not necessarily binding on us. Source: UK Supreme Court website.

I don't think so, mate....

 

[cor blymie]

Will anything change with the way we deal with non EU illeagals

Will the UK be able to send them back to France once they hop out of the backs of trucks seeing as that is where they came from

we'll be able to kick out those abusing our hospitality, the huge amount being housed by HMP for starters. At the moment we are being stopped by the European Court and their bizarre take on human rights

 

[kiwiqpr]

we'll be able to kick out those abusing our hospitality, the huge amount being housed by HMP for starters. At the moment we are being stopped by the European Court and their bizarre take on human rights

can we turn the illeagals around back to france as soon as they sneak out of a lorry
or do as we do now and trust they will turn up at a some time in the future hearing

 

[cor blymie]

can we turn the illeagals around back to france as soon as they sneak out of a lorry
or do as we do now and trust they will turn up at a some time in the future hearing

if we ever get a Government with the will to act. But Lib/Lab/Con parties are pro mass immigration, legal or illegal

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

I've looked it up. We can deny entry to EU citizens for public policy, public security and public health reasons. We can deny the right to settle (I.e residency) to EU citizens who don't work and do not have the means to support themselves. In certain circumstances appeals can be referred to the ECJ, but the UK Supreme Court has no obligation to accept the decision. The U.K. Supreme Court does have a responsibility to uphold the principles of the European Convention of Human Rights, because we are signatories (indeed we are founder members, from 1947, of the Council of Europe, of which the ECHR is a part), but again individual decisions of the ECHR are not necessarily binding on us. Source: UK Supreme Court website.

It has virtually nothing to do with Schengen. Apparently Belgium denies entry and deports a lot of EU citizens.

Theresa May is the only one I have heard saying we should leave the ECHR.

No issue with any of this. If the UK purportedly denies free movement to an EU citizen (ie access to UK) unreasonably, it's an EU matter and appeals go to the ECJ for interpretation, not the ECHR.

As to the influence of a European Court decision, look at the Abu Hamza case. Here, the ECHR denied the UK the right to extradite this terrorist to the US, and for some years we were prevented from doing so. There have been a number of similar examples. In practice, the UK has absolutely no right to decide which European Court decisions it wants to abide by, and which it does not.

 

[sb_73]

No issue with any of this. If the UK purportedly denies free movement to an EU citizen (ie access to UK) unreasonably, it's an EU matter and appeals go to the ECJ for interpretation, not the ECHR.

As to the influence of a European Court decision, look at the Abu Hamza case. Here, the ECHR denied the UK the right to extradite this terrorist to the US, and for some years we were prevented from doing so. There have been a number of similar examples. In practice, the UK has absolutely no right to decide which European Court decisions it wants to abide by, and which it does not.

But Hamza did end up extradited didn't he? I think that European level courts essentially stretch out legal processes (on top of our own lengthy ones) even further to the benefit of lawyers, rather than ultimately reverse national decisions, but I haven't looked at the case law. On one hand this is regrettable, on the other, it is about the protection of the individual, who are not all as vile as Hamza. Extradition to the US, while it may seem uncontroversial at first glance, is complicated by their retention of the death penalty and holding people without trial in Guantanamo for many years.

Anyway, I think we all agree that this has little to do with the EU.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

But Hamza did end up extradited didn't he? I think that European level courts essentially stretch out legal processes (on top of our own lengthy ones) even further to the benefit of lawyers, rather than ultimately reverse national decisions, but I haven't looked at the case law. On one hand this is regrettable, on the other, it is about the protection of the individual, who are not all as vile as Hamza. Extradition to the US, while it may seem uncontroversial at first glance, is complicated by their retention of the death penalty and holding people without trial in Guantanamo for many years.

Anyway, I think we all agree that this has little to do with the EU.

Yes, you and I are agreed that the ECHR has little to do with EU rules on free movement - we just must not underestimate the influence of the European Courts on the UK government.

And bear in mind that under EU rules that you quote (2004 citizens directive), previous convictions of EU citizens including murder, rape and other violent crimes, do not of themselves justify the UK excluding that EU citizen. A serious threat to our society has to be proven in each case. Sadly, UK border controls often do not have knowledge of the criminal records of those coming in (particularly outside Old Europe). This was shown most starkly by the murder of 14 year old Alice Gross by a Latvian builder who had already been convicted of a heinous murder of his wife in his own country. And yet Cameron wants Turkey and Albania to join the EU. When this comes about, the strong likelihood is we'd have no idea which criminals were coming into the country under the free movement rules.