AlexLaw76

Lets not, in a globalised world of today.

And Canada, and Australia, and any other developed nation not in Europe

it could allow the country to do many things, good or bad.

If the country wanted to do it, it could. What it allows 'me' to do is irrelevant.

As do most of the word outside of the this continent.

but not impossible. Well, impossible for our politicians from any party

Lets see what ChatGPT thinks (headline items). Leaving the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) would not be easy for the UK — legally possible, but politically and constitutionally very complex. Here’s a breakdown of what’s involved 👇 ⚖️ 1. Legal Mechanism Under Article 58 of the ECHR, any member state can withdraw by: Giving six months’ notice to the Council of Europe (not the EU — they’re different), After which, the UK would no longer be bound by the Convention. So, technically it’s simple — just a formal notification. But the consequences are far-reaching. 🏛️ 2. Domestic Legal Impact The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) incorporates the ECHR into UK law. If the UK left the ECHR: Parliament would likely need to repeal or rewrite the HRA. UK courts would no longer be bound to interpret laws in line with ECHR rights. People could no longer appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. That would create a major constitutional shift, especially in how fundamental rights are enforced domestically. 🧩 3. Impact on Devolution Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have devolved settlements that explicitly reference the ECHR: The Good Friday Agreement (1998) requires the ECHR to be incorporated into Northern Irish law. Leaving the ECHR could breach that international treaty and destabilize the Northern Ireland peace process. Scotland’s and Wales’ devolved governments would strongly oppose leaving, possibly sparking constitutional tension. 🌍 4. International and Political Fallout The UK would become the only European country (apart from Belarus and Russia) outside the ECHR system — a major reputational hit. It could strain relations with allies, especially the Council of Europe, EU, and NATO members. Could also affect extradition, law enforcement, and security cooperation (many treaties assume ECHR compliance). 🗳️ 5. Political Reality While some politicians (especially on the right) have floated withdrawal, there’s no broad parliamentary majority for it. The Lords, devolved governments, and much of the legal establishment would fiercely resist. The public reaction would likely be mixed, but polling suggests many still support keeping ECHR rights.

This, is good news

We can change pretty much what we like. Everything is a political choice. Many of said choices that we were told were never an option will creep in anyway as this Government gets more f-ing desperate. We all know their 'silver bullet' will be just to grant anyone and everyone who wants it, asylum. Then that will get exposed for what it is and they get slammed anyway. As for the problem on the ground, again all choices. The Government could choose to make the UK an unattractive destination, ie reduce the pull factor. Make it impossible for Deliveroo to hire these people, or go big on the ridiculous number of cash-only barbers on every corner, or any other obvious things. Declare that if you enter the country illegally you will never ever be granted the right to remain. Do not give them tickets to Chelsea, or the fun fair, or mobile phones, or paid for taxi service to go shopping/doctors/where ever they want. Any of them who commit any sort of crime are immediately deported (those that can)......All choices. One thing is for sure, Digital ID will do jack shit.

Appeals, then last min challenges, then more appeals etc. Rinse and repeat. In the mean time, HMOs everywhere, crime by illegal immigrants freely wandering around, sexual assaults and more random attacks that we have seen today, will just all be part and parcel of this weird act of self-harm of the UK we are seeing take place with our own eyes. Wont be long before Remembrance parades are actually banned within certain 'communities' (probably those stuffed with HMOs).

We are about to 'send back' the wandering sexual assaulter. Wonder why we did not send him back in the first instance.

When we quickly exhaust all the bare-useful ex military barracks, the pressure on the Government will grow (along with the crime in the local areas of said barracks), and, as said before, we will probably see the UK military acting as a deterrent in the Channel. Maybe even get a few Royal Marines towing the boats back over the sea-border. Probably not the last bit, but this government will get desperate, and as Lord Duck hunter said a few pages back, the UK is clearly walking towards what Reform want to do anyway.

What, we should have stuck with Martin?

We need a new manager to then sack him after being promoted. Along with the NET SPEND trophy, we need to hold on to this bad boy

Because, hotels, medical care, free stuff, mobile phones, deliveroo jobs, hairdressing, black economy, the ability to sexually assault teenagers and get let out of prison...soon, a nice room indefinitely in a secure ex-army barrack.

No.

He is just clueless (for us), and we are gong absolutely nowhere with him at the wheel.

Political will. Difficult for those in power when half of the front bench were literally welcoming them across the channel 18m+ ago.

One day, a government of ours might actually make pretty undesirable to illegally cross the channel to be here. Until then, the slow march to a reform government will continue.

I have seen absolutely nothing from our team this season that oozes 'pressing with energy'

Hamas did though, they agreed to it I guess

Me suggesting? I never took part, nor agreed, to the ceasefire agreement.

1 of the 2 ex Army barracks being used will house c300 men (Cameron Barracks). 300? That will be full in a couple of days, then what? And no doubt these sites would have housed far more than that when crammed with squaddies.

Hostages not all returned, so Israel strikes. Red Cross witness Hamas operatives burying a body to then dig it up to claim it is the remains of a hostage. Who knows what is accurate.

I agree, using the term “largely peaceful” in the context of violence is ridiculous. No doubt the suspect will be easily identifiable as someone who either should not be here, or came over on a dinghy (even both).