Steve J wrote:

---

Bob in Spain wrote:

---

"I don't know if this is legal but .... "

---

From the notes on the bill -

"A statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not mean that the provisions in the Bill are incompatible with the Convention rights. The Government is satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are capable of being applied compatibly with those rights."

It is also interesting to note that the bill disapplies section 3 of the Human Rights Act.

If you are interested, here is the human rights memo for the bill -

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0262/ECHR%20memo%20Illegal%20Migration%20Bill%20FINAL.pdf

 

---

 'interesting' is one word for it.

It's rather like the ouster clauses that various governments have inserted into several important Acts which were then found to be illegal by the courts

Of course, sovereignty means that - in theory - Parliament has the right to disregard its previous acts (without actually repealing them). But as this refers to constitutional principles, it's not so straightforward....

Not saying I agree 100% with it, but The Justice Gap explains the problem quite well

 https://www.thejusticegap.com/disregarding-international-law-is-one-thing-but-disregarding-foundational-democratic-rights-is-quite-another/

The fact that this will blow up our Trade Cooperation Agreement with Europe, of course, is pretty frightening. Although the stalling mechanism the govt. is proposing is absolutely typical - try and drag it out till after the election, regardless of how much harm it does. 

And, of course, the whole problem is the Brexit implementation anyway. Under the Dublin Agreement, the UK had less than 1000 mirants per year coming across the channel. Now it's getting on for 50,000, I think. That's what happens when you decide you don't want the cooperation of your neighbours. It wasn't part of Boris' agreement because he purposely left it all to the very last minute, to increase tension and make himself seem a saviour. But that left us with no mutual equivalence agreements, no service agreements, no Dublin agreement replacement to cope with 'illegal' immigration etc etc etc. 

JonH comes home wrote:

I dont know where this goes but much as I dont like him, I do support Gary Lineker and what he said and his right to say it

www.theguardian.com/football/live/2023/mar/10/premier-league-team-news-previews-press-conferences-and-european-reaction-live

And it is great all the other presenters and pundits are also refusing to participate now. Good for them. Silly bbc

 I'm all for freedom of speech, but his comparison took it too far and the BBC are well within their rights to suspend him.

paulisi wrote:

---

I'm all for freedom of speech, but his comparison took it too far and the BBC are well within their rights to suspend him.

This may be the case. But surely the BBC have now put themselves in a position where they have to suspend every presenter who has made, or makes in the future, public comment about news or current affairs; as who is to judge which comments are "too far".

They may also have to re-examine how they "employ" people: restricting employees actions outside the workplace - and not related to the workplace - is a very unpleasant thing to be doing and this is multiple times worse when the corporation chooses not to actually employ these people.

And all of this when the current head of the BBC got the job under extraordinarily dodgy circumstances, which he flatly refuses to acknowledge. I love workplaces where the boss is held to different standards than the workforce, but only when the boss's standards are more stringent.

indiana wrote:

---

The Lineker decision was not surprising.

Whatever folk may think about what he said, it did look like overstepping the mark.

---

 It may still be not surprising, which one can argue is a great pity in itself

I think though folk above have made a very convincing case that it is wrong and doesn't  break BBC rules given his role in the BBC and where he aired his opinion. His analogy remains questionable /"cheap" but I have come round to it being the BBC bosses who are the ones overstepping the mark.

Coup Droit wrote:

---

It's rather like the ouster clauses that various governments have inserted into several important Acts which were then found to be illegal by the courts

Of course, sovereignty means that - in theory - Parliament has the right to disregard its previous acts (without actually repealing them). But as this refers to constitutional principles, it's not so straightforward....

And, of course, the whole problem is the Brexit implementation anyway. Under the Dublin Agreement, the UK had less than 1000 mirants per year coming across the channel.  

---

Doesn't disapplying article 3 of the HRA stop the UK courts doing that to this bill? The bill appears to be written anticipating intervention by the ECtHR. I can guess what will happen after such an intervention.

The Supreme Court disagree with you. See the recent ruling on the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Act of Union.

The Dublin Agreement was almost useless.