The government responded to the petition
Eager to see how they'll defend themselves when they have to debate this is parliament. If no MP puts forward a no confidence vote it's either cowardice on their part, or they just want to see Labour continue to destroy itself and further radicalise people, which I can kind of understand from an accelerationist point of view.
We also need to see the debate for the Online Safety Act at some point as well; Labour's counter-arguments to the bill's opponents boiled down to said opponents being pedos, but we already know the government was a bit pissed off by how compliant a lot of websites and services were, which just ended up creating even more bad PR for the government and potentially fucking up any good will earned with the youth by lowering the voting age. They'll only be able to spew out platitudes and some Tories who probably voted in favour of the bill to begin with in 2023 will now be arguing why it's bad — total clown show.
Also:
>Mandate
>34% of the electorate
lmao
There's a cheeky loophole that Blair put into law.
Human rights act 1998
We'd need to repeal this act or else any proposed laws can be stymied by civil service or judges complaining about said acts not abiding by the ECHR.
We have too much bullshit that needs to either be overridden completely with 1 single, all-encompassing bill or repealed entirely so one faggy-replacement government can't just repeal the bill effectively negating the past 40-50 years of utterly shit legislation.
Here's a list. I'll only list UK acts since international ones can't be enforced anyway and I feel like we're a decade out from people ignoring that shit.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG) - this gives a shit load of power to the civil service, and says that they are not required "to carry out their duties with objectivity or impartiality" according to their code of conduct, hence the number of wannabe activists. It also makes all treaties the UK signs onto
binding and if we seek to withdraw, we must wait 21 days for parliament/ministers to object, so if we wanted to leave the ECHR, we'd first have to wait 21 days before doing so.
Human Rights Act 1998 - Essentially gives the provisions and laws of the ECHR priority over our own. Prevents us from actively blocking the boat migrants from setting foot on our soil or forcing them back out to sea. Whilst parliament can pass and vote on laws that don't adhere to it, public bodies (Civil service, judiciaries - yes, including the supreme court) are required to abide by the ECHR.
Merchant Shipping Act 1995 - Obliges the recovery and return of property left out at sea (boats migrants used to cross to begin with) and also obliges people to help migrant boats since not doing so would be a violation of the requirement to render assistance.
Immigration Act 1971 - Nobody can be detained indefinitely, people can only be deported to where they are permitted and it is safe to do so, and "refugees" (provable or otherwise) cannot be penalised for illegal entry.
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 - Combined the formerly separate immigrant and asylum tribunals into a single body, and allows lower courts to act independently in a sense in whether and immigrant is a legit arrival or an asylum seeker - with the ECHR in mind, and the UN's laws on statelessness, you can see how a small-time judge might just let someone stay indefinitely due to a lax interpretation of the law or some activist bullshit. The 2004 Act locks in a process that
must be followed once someone arrives and claims asylum. It's like that scene in Pirates of the Caribbean, where Elizabeth goes, "Parlay!" and the pirates are obliged to take her to the captain - same principle.
Immigration Rules Part 11 -
327EA. Under this Part, a claim for humanitarian protection is a request by a person for international protection due to a claim that if they are removed from or required to leave the UK, they would face a real risk of suffering serious harm (as defined in paragraph 339CA) in their country of origin, and they are unable, or owing to such risk, unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country.
327EB. A claim for humanitarian protection must meet the requirements of paragraphs 327AB(i) to (iv) otherwise it will not be recorded as a valid claim for humanitarian protection.
327EC. If someone makes a claim for humanitarian protection, they will be deemed to be an asylum applicant and to have made an application for asylum for the purposes of these Rules. The claim will be recorded, subject to meeting the requirements of Rule 327AB(i) to (iv), as an application for asylum and will be assessed under paragraph 334 for refugee status in the first instance. If the application for refugee status is refused, then the Secretary of State will go on to consider the claim as a claim for humanitarian protection.
329. For so long as an asylum applicant cannot be removed from or required to leave the UK because section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 applies, any dependants who meet the definition under paragraph 349 must also not be removed from or required to leave the UK.
Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 -
“Nothing in the immigration rules shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the [1951 Refugee] Convention.”
How this doesn't "bind" a future parliament, I don't get, but just because it says so on paper doesn't mean it can't be un-done. So much bullshit is just optics poison politically, because you know the opposition will just go: "They're abolishing human rights?!?"
What also sucks about this act is even if we leave the ECHR and repeal the 1998 act, this act will still be in place and will have to be repealed to. It also prevents the deportation of people to "unsafe 3rd countries" and similarly prevents the removal of people when their asylum claim is still pending.
Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 - Created the not-so-known about National Asylum Support Service (NASS), which houses asylum seekers whilst processing their claims, and is effectively why the asylum hotels are a thing because it puts the onus of care on the government to house them all. It also further reinforces that you can't deport or sent asylum seekers away whilst their claim is being processed (I think this is why just abolishing the system entirely has come up a lot now since this is the lynchpin enabling all the illegals to stay here). It also extends detention powers (good) but they still have to abide by prior stated law (no indefinite detention). You also can't claim asylum from abroad (good) but it also incentivises the boat crossings (bad).
This to me was Labour's equivalent of the Rwanda scheme, an attempt to placate the anti-immigrant crowd whilst actually being toothless as a result of prior laws.
Equality Act 2010 - This law prevents public bodies from discriminating whatsoever, thus preventing them from not providing aid or service to non-Brits or even non-citizens, so it
requires the UK government to render aid and provide benefits to those coming in. It also prevents and allows the judiciary to strike down proposed bills or laws that target specific groups of people in a way perceived as being discriminatory. Labour passed this in their going-out year as what I can only guess is a middle finger to people electing the Tories on the hope they'd reduce immigration. This law prevents any amendments or acts being passed which specifically target a particular group of people too, so no "anti-Paki bill" — it could also potentially fuck over any proposed non-stun slaughter act since it could be viewed as discriminatory against Jews and Muslims.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 - Another law, another barrier to make expulsion harder. Further muddied the appeals process by introducing tribunals and making it harder to assess a country as being "safe" for deportation to. Granted you a
2nd opportunity to appeal I.E. "denied asylum -
1st appeal - removal date set -
2nd appeal - and during this appeal time they are granted their usual accommodation and rights. Also grants the power for judges to
give citizenship if the asylum seeker is stateless.
NHS Act 2006 - Allows you to register with a GP without any immigration checks and makes it so doctors have a legal duty to provide care regardless of immigration status. Whilst it also introduces charging overseas visitors, the NHS Regulations 2015 makes asylum seekers and certain migrants exempt.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 - Cut legal aid for illegal immigrants and makes it so they have to represent themselves, but makes asylum exempt - again, incentivising people to claim asylum and thus being waited on hand on foot for literal years. Again, the government
cannot refuse asylum claims at all.
UK Borders Act 2007 - Section 32 of this law makes it so any foreign criminal in the UK can be automatically deported... unless it violates the ECHR (Article 8: Right to family life I.E. can't be deported if their family is here womp womp) or refugee convention. Further mandates the required process I.E. collection of biometric data and some such. This means if you're 1 of the 50k boat crossers who arrived here, you have to wait to have your biometric data collected before they can even start the process of your asylum claim.
I need to run for parliament or something someone need to autistically cut all this shit out of being or override it all. Our civil service will hindrance us at very opportunity so long as they cite any of this shit. And any time one of these imports commits a crime, the deck is so stacked in their favour to prevent their deportation, that any time they are sentences for a crime it's bittersweet at best because you just know they're probably going to be remaining here regardless. The only consolation here is that despite the wording of some of this shit, there's no functional mechanism in place to prevent us repealing all of it.
A relatively easy pair of things we can do override a lot of of these:
1. Abolish the asylum system (repealing a shit ton of laws and pulling out of various treaties) or put into law that the UK no longer provides a right for asylum (the easiest to do IMO).
2. Repeal CRAG (2010)
1 would make it so there's no such thing as an asylum seeker, just legal and illegal immigrants, and 2 would make it so we can withdraw from treaties and prevent parliament effectively being under the thumb of the civil service who is acting on the behalf of foreign institutions and law.
