Stephen Barrett has drawn attention to page 13 of Mahmoud's paper, which creates a new category of asylum seeker. He describes this an an amnesty and predicts that most asylum seekers will be placed in this category. The loud objections of Labour backbenchers should be seen as an orchestrated ploy, part of a PR operation to make the Home Secretary's measures look tougher than they are. Beware Labour Governments bearing gifts.
No one will be deported. Ideological opposition to it completely grips the British Establishment. We saw their hysteria over Rwanda, there were also the hundreds of MPs who signed a motion opposing deporting convicted foreign criminals back to Jamaica even after Jamaica agreed to have them back. They literally want nobody to be deported regardless of the consequences.
My God how depressing. Our only hope is that the mere mention of such measures in the UK Parliament will cause a few people smugglers to direct their clients to Treasure Ireland instead of the UK thereby increasing pressure on the Irish govt to stiffen its resolve to make us less attractive.
In the 1990s a now sadly deceased friend of my wife was working as a receptionist/secretary in an office in Dublin 2. In the course of her work one day she had to tell a middle class Egyptian man in his 30s that her (male) boss was busy and she would deal with his issue instead. The Egyptian was so outraged that a woman would be dealing with him and not a man that the Gardai had to be called to remove him. His mentality is the same one that means Irish women UNIFIL soldiers in South Lebanon today can’t operate checkpoints etc as that could mean questioning or saying no to a Muslim male thereby triggering a potentially violent scene.
The depth of misogyny in Sharia-ruled lands is conveniently ignored by the NGO, media and political class. Perhaps the sooner China takes over Europe the better.
I still remember Thatcher's attempts to change the EU. We ended up with the Single Market in everything the Europeans wanted - Farming, manufacturing - And the same closed markets in the things we wanted - Insurance, banking, legal and financial matters. If Thatcher, who was a Europhile in the 1970s, was trained in law and had a brilliant mind, couldn't do it do people really imagine that Starmer will?
People have to remember two things : 1) The brightest people in France don't go into banking as they do in the UK, they go into diplomacy and law. They are the ninjas of international agreements, back room dealing and the double cross 2) The people going into diplomacy (the Foreign Office etc) in the UK are all upper middle class, anywhere types and Europhiles who hate the UK. They will do anything to make sure we stay in the power of overseas authority and move towards globalism.
As a non-legal person who has read a little on the subject it seems to me staying in the agreement is the worst possible option. The first step we should take is to remove ourselves from under the control of the Court of the ECHR to prevent them over-ruling our laws. We signed the convention in the 50s I believe but were never intended to be under the court, not becoming subservient to it until 1967(?).
Then we need to pass a bill to make it clear in law what we mean by human rights and that all rulings by our judges must comply with the intention of UK law and not any other body or court. That would be a start, the complexities will probably take years to unpick.
I see a local TD has sounded the alarm on this in the south of Ireland. I wonder if a no confidence motion were to be declared in Lord Hermer would he be obliged to let it become law.
Laura Perrins, a fine barrister, mentions Mr Hermer KC and Mr Starmer KC.
The Dance of the Laybour KCs will expend vast quantities of hot air in return for no progress at all. For example, Mr Hermer KC, personally interfered in Five Eyes in early November 2025 because he felt like it. Such treason should be explored, in court.
Should one have arrived into the UK without ID, taken a woman by force and contributed not one penny to the economy, Mr Hermer KC and other select Kings Clowns would seek to give compensation.
Yet, one can be a full tax paying UK citizen, stand outside a number of 'key assets' in silent prayer, and be arrested.
The politics of the agreeably comfortably off who bear no accountability for anything. KC.
Isn't the fault line here between Labour's south Asian block vote who want controlled (i.e. preferential) migration for their clan members, versus Labour's white upper-class progressives who want open borders to drive economic growth and ensure wage suppression in the service economy?
Stephen Barrett has drawn attention to page 13 of Mahmoud's paper, which creates a new category of asylum seeker. He describes this an an amnesty and predicts that most asylum seekers will be placed in this category. The loud objections of Labour backbenchers should be seen as an orchestrated ploy, part of a PR operation to make the Home Secretary's measures look tougher than they are. Beware Labour Governments bearing gifts.
No one will be deported. Ideological opposition to it completely grips the British Establishment. We saw their hysteria over Rwanda, there were also the hundreds of MPs who signed a motion opposing deporting convicted foreign criminals back to Jamaica even after Jamaica agreed to have them back. They literally want nobody to be deported regardless of the consequences.
My God how depressing. Our only hope is that the mere mention of such measures in the UK Parliament will cause a few people smugglers to direct their clients to Treasure Ireland instead of the UK thereby increasing pressure on the Irish govt to stiffen its resolve to make us less attractive.
In the 1990s a now sadly deceased friend of my wife was working as a receptionist/secretary in an office in Dublin 2. In the course of her work one day she had to tell a middle class Egyptian man in his 30s that her (male) boss was busy and she would deal with his issue instead. The Egyptian was so outraged that a woman would be dealing with him and not a man that the Gardai had to be called to remove him. His mentality is the same one that means Irish women UNIFIL soldiers in South Lebanon today can’t operate checkpoints etc as that could mean questioning or saying no to a Muslim male thereby triggering a potentially violent scene.
The depth of misogyny in Sharia-ruled lands is conveniently ignored by the NGO, media and political class. Perhaps the sooner China takes over Europe the better.
Yes , I've got to agree with you Laura.
These proposals are dead in the water !
Now if we only had a Navy and Tony Abbott as our PM.
Instances of whinging about "dog whistles" will henceforth be known as "dog farts".
I still remember Thatcher's attempts to change the EU. We ended up with the Single Market in everything the Europeans wanted - Farming, manufacturing - And the same closed markets in the things we wanted - Insurance, banking, legal and financial matters. If Thatcher, who was a Europhile in the 1970s, was trained in law and had a brilliant mind, couldn't do it do people really imagine that Starmer will?
People have to remember two things : 1) The brightest people in France don't go into banking as they do in the UK, they go into diplomacy and law. They are the ninjas of international agreements, back room dealing and the double cross 2) The people going into diplomacy (the Foreign Office etc) in the UK are all upper middle class, anywhere types and Europhiles who hate the UK. They will do anything to make sure we stay in the power of overseas authority and move towards globalism.
As a non-legal person who has read a little on the subject it seems to me staying in the agreement is the worst possible option. The first step we should take is to remove ourselves from under the control of the Court of the ECHR to prevent them over-ruling our laws. We signed the convention in the 50s I believe but were never intended to be under the court, not becoming subservient to it until 1967(?).
Then we need to pass a bill to make it clear in law what we mean by human rights and that all rulings by our judges must comply with the intention of UK law and not any other body or court. That would be a start, the complexities will probably take years to unpick.
I see a local TD has sounded the alarm on this in the south of Ireland. I wonder if a no confidence motion were to be declared in Lord Hermer would he be obliged to let it become law.
I was also amazed that there was an EU directive enforcing a statutory duty to benefits to asylum tourists.
Laura Perrins, a fine barrister, mentions Mr Hermer KC and Mr Starmer KC.
The Dance of the Laybour KCs will expend vast quantities of hot air in return for no progress at all. For example, Mr Hermer KC, personally interfered in Five Eyes in early November 2025 because he felt like it. Such treason should be explored, in court.
Should one have arrived into the UK without ID, taken a woman by force and contributed not one penny to the economy, Mr Hermer KC and other select Kings Clowns would seek to give compensation.
Yet, one can be a full tax paying UK citizen, stand outside a number of 'key assets' in silent prayer, and be arrested.
The politics of the agreeably comfortably off who bear no accountability for anything. KC.
Isn't the fault line here between Labour's south Asian block vote who want controlled (i.e. preferential) migration for their clan members, versus Labour's white upper-class progressives who want open borders to drive economic growth and ensure wage suppression in the service economy?