@gavinantonyrice.bsky.social
Project Director, Future of Conservatism at Onward. Former Brexit SpAd. Teddy Roosevelt enthusiast. Sometimes in @telegraphnews.bsky.social, The Critic, ConHome. Redefining One Nation. Views my own.
I think the ability to deport violent FNOs + to create a meaningful deterrent for illegal migration / fraudulent asylum seeking are important if the UK is to have an actual border - which is something I (and vast majority of the public) really do care about.
I'm surprised ppl are surprised by this!
If you're worried about the domestic UK government trampling on basic human rights outside of the ECHR, that's not a concern I share. As Lord Sumption has consistently argued, the UK did not struggle with upholding individual rights or the rule of law before 1998.
No-one said anything about discounting foreigners' welfare to zero. I just don't think non-citizen welfare is the top priority for the UK govt, nor is it necessary to be in the ECHR to treat non-citizens well & properly. Right now the balance is wrong in favour of non-citizens whom we cannot remove.
There are rules governing war that are not the ECHR. The UK didn't struggle domestically with any of those rights before the ECHR. It's true that ECHR membership has probably been positive for ex-Soviet bloc states like Hungary & Bulgaria but unnecessary in the UK.
It's the British government, not the world government. Global welfare isn't its job.
Sure. I'm not fussed about that as I think the priority for the UK government is the welfare and safety of UK citizens, which means removing violent foreign nationals from the territory and ensuring there's a democratic override legal rights preventing this that emanate from elsewhere.
A Beijing-aligned adviser is opposed to US trade policy targeting China. Well blow me down.
Yes, principally from a UK perspective that we would need some kind of replacement mechanism, but being unable to deport violent FNOs who have committed rape / murder to countries of origin is a red line we shouldn't concede, so we need treaty change or to leave.
The rule of law isn't at risk of unravelling if the UK leaves international legal arrangements because we had the rule of law just fine before we joined them.
The fact that they are "foreign" (i.e. international not national) is important, as the inflated rights the ECHR conveys on people like FNOs are not subject to domestic democratic override, unless & until the UK leaves the ECHR or the treaties are changed on a multilateral basis by the signatories.
A Beijing-aligned adviser is opposed to US trade policy targeting China. Well blow me down.
We agreed to certain treaties after WWII, then the interpretation of those treaties by an international court expanded the rights they uphold in a way which makes it impossible for the British state to deport foreign national offenders even when they're a danger to the public...
Third Onward person here - after @jameskanag.bsky.social
New here, not sure what to expect...👋