Technology0 min ago
Now What?
https:/
What of the million pounds given to Rwanda ,do we get that back?
What of the million pounds given to Rwanda ,do we get that back?
Answers
It's more or less inevitable that this will go to the Supreme Court, especially when it's a 2-1 majority opinion rather than unanimous. Still reading the judgment (linked below), and may comment further afterwards on the specifics, but since this is surely not the end of the story of whether the policy is lawful, it's probably better to wait for the end of the...
11:56 Thu 29th Jun 2023
https:/
How are audiences selected for Question Time?
Question Time selects local audiences which reflect a broad range of political views. People apply to be in the audience for Question Time via the website and by phone and producers get in touch to ask questions on their previous voting record and future voting intentions, whether they have party political membership and also how they voted in the EU Referendum. This is to ensure a range of views are represented in the audience. Occasionally, if production staff feel any group or view is under-represented in the applications, they will promote the programme through relevant local media channels to encourage people to apply.
Question Time is a national programme which must be relevant to audiences across the UK. A diverse range of British opinion must be represented. In observing due impartiality, political fairness, and our intent to represent that wide range of views, our audience broadly reflects the electoral map of the nation in which we are broadcasting. That is primarily guided by past and present electoral support, with the most recent general election of most importance. We might also give some consideration to local political sentiment.
How are audiences selected for Question Time?
Question Time selects local audiences which reflect a broad range of political views. People apply to be in the audience for Question Time via the website and by phone and producers get in touch to ask questions on their previous voting record and future voting intentions, whether they have party political membership and also how they voted in the EU Referendum. This is to ensure a range of views are represented in the audience. Occasionally, if production staff feel any group or view is under-represented in the applications, they will promote the programme through relevant local media channels to encourage people to apply.
Question Time is a national programme which must be relevant to audiences across the UK. A diverse range of British opinion must be represented. In observing due impartiality, political fairness, and our intent to represent that wide range of views, our audience broadly reflects the electoral map of the nation in which we are broadcasting. That is primarily guided by past and present electoral support, with the most recent general election of most importance. We might also give some consideration to local political sentiment.
// Ah, so the High Court, not the UKSC. //
Barely even that. This was an emergency appeal to an emergency injunction etc. etc., applied in only one of seven cases.
Some more discussion below:
https:/
Since the High Court has since ruled that all individual cases needed to be readdressed by the Home Secretary, then the ECtHR's intervention is at this point moot. It may or may not see the appeal at a later stage, but that would be to anticipate the decision of the Supreme Court. I highly doubt that the UK Government would appeal to the ECtHR if the UKSC rules that the Rwanda scheme is unlawful in like manner to the Court of Appeal.
Barely even that. This was an emergency appeal to an emergency injunction etc. etc., applied in only one of seven cases.
Some more discussion below:
https:/
Since the High Court has since ruled that all individual cases needed to be readdressed by the Home Secretary, then the ECtHR's intervention is at this point moot. It may or may not see the appeal at a later stage, but that would be to anticipate the decision of the Supreme Court. I highly doubt that the UK Government would appeal to the ECtHR if the UKSC rules that the Rwanda scheme is unlawful in like manner to the Court of Appeal.
// [Leaving the ECHR and, by extension, the Court] as far as I'm aware, hasn't been suggested as a precedent to follow. //
It's been suggested quite a lot.
https:/
It's been suggested quite a lot.
https:/
It isn't craftily edited at all. It's a fair reflection of the point. My initial post mentioned leaving the ECtHR. Your reply said "it". I clarified what "it" was.
Also, it's clear that if we leave the ECtHR, and the ECHR, then whether we said we were explicitly intending to do so or not, we would be following the precedent set by Russia and Belarus. It's vital to uphold the integrity of what is generally held to be the most robust protection of Human Rights in the world, and wrong to contemplate leaving the ECtHR because, following what is ultimately a narrow procedural issue, it occasionally frustrates the Government's ability to take certain actions.
Also, it's clear that if we leave the ECtHR, and the ECHR, then whether we said we were explicitly intending to do so or not, we would be following the precedent set by Russia and Belarus. It's vital to uphold the integrity of what is generally held to be the most robust protection of Human Rights in the world, and wrong to contemplate leaving the ECtHR because, following what is ultimately a narrow procedural issue, it occasionally frustrates the Government's ability to take certain actions.
It's unambiguous that if we left the ECtHR we'd be doing the same thing as Russia and Belarus in that regard. I don't mean, obviously, that we'd then immediately invade Ireland or whatever. But it would be disturbing to have that in common, and would surely serve to undermine the legitimacy of the Court and its protections. The UK is still a highly-respected country and its actions in such regards are unlikely to be ignored, either by those who'd seek to copy (and then abuse) that example, or by those allies who'd look less favourably upon us as a result of taking such a drastic step.
Still, allow me to ask a different question:
1. Do you think we should leave the ECHR (the Convention, not the Court, although leaving the former would surely imply the latter)?
2. If not, what should be the role of the ECtHR be? Should its rulings be (a) binding; (b) not binding, but still important to consider and take seriously; (c) advisory at most, (d) largely irrelevant?
3. Regardless of your answer to (1), (2), would you agree that there is an important role for *some* supranational authority to play in ensuring that Governments do not ignore Human Rights? Put another way, would you accept the existence of the ECtHR and the Convention, albeit with some limited reforms or clarifications?
Still, allow me to ask a different question:
1. Do you think we should leave the ECHR (the Convention, not the Court, although leaving the former would surely imply the latter)?
2. If not, what should be the role of the ECtHR be? Should its rulings be (a) binding; (b) not binding, but still important to consider and take seriously; (c) advisory at most, (d) largely irrelevant?
3. Regardless of your answer to (1), (2), would you agree that there is an important role for *some* supranational authority to play in ensuring that Governments do not ignore Human Rights? Put another way, would you accept the existence of the ECtHR and the Convention, albeit with some limited reforms or clarifications?
Latest Posts
Crosswords3 mins ago
Technology4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Trump/Ukraine, What Will He Do?
News10 mins ago
Crime Cases Still Using Cassettes
Technology13 mins ago
