Can you think of a European country that has successfully stopped illegal migration whilst complying with the ECHR (Hungary's pushbacks are illegal under Hirsi Jamaa v Italy)?

Illegal migration is a problem experienced by most European countries, it's not unique to the UK. And as the letter of the nine States shows, concerns about the ECHR are shared

You can't send a serious criminal back to their country of origin if they would suffer degrading treatment under ECHR but you can under RC. The absolute numbers might not be huge but that's the sort of thing that really fuels discontent with Strasbourg

(Love the German spelling ;)

Not necessarily, there's a path in which that leads to a Labour victory/minority govt

I think the only way it survives is if labour manages to either (a) deals with the small boats within the ECHR case law , (b) an effort to reform the ECHR by limiting non refoulement to torture succeeds.

Neither of which will be popular with people on this website (as a) involves deportations)

Would you support an amendment to Article 3 allowing deportation of serious foreign criminals (a la Art 33(2) RC)?

Or an amendment limiting the implied non refoulement obligation in Article 3 to only torture? (And not, being slapped in the face by a police officer: Bouyid v Belgium)

As for the claim that we goldplate, we cannot know unless and until first tier tribunal immigration decisions. There is no good reason why they are not.

As for the claim that very few cases go to Strasbourg: that's because the domestic administrative and legal system applies the Convention case law directly and correctly

It's absurd to suggest that small numbers going to a fourth instance Court means that Court has no or little influence

I, here, make no value judgement on whether that case law is good or bad. And defenders of the ECHR are welcome to make the case for it (though personally I don't think following Art 33(2) RC is fascism) but to deny that these impact on states ability to control their borders is unreal

(which includes a single slap in the face by a police officer: Bouyid v Belgium)

That obligation is absolute thereby denying States the freedom they have to deport criminals under Art 33(2) of the Refugee Convention

Sorry Joelle but I find that first claim astonishing. Yes the court always has that formula and it's followed by a "but"

States are unable to carry out pushbacks (Hirsi Jamaa v Italy)

They cannot deport people to countries where they face a real risk of degrading (by European standard) treatment

From this article

news.sky.com/story/inside...

Also unfortunate that defenders of human rights and the rule of law say nothing about the lack of publication of immigration tribunal decisions

It's a bit silly to suggest "you can't post about something unless you've been there"

In any event the Polish govt has admitted the practice and they've passed laws on this. It's hardly a secret

The NGOs and the migrants interviewed said so. And the polish govt is more or less open about it

www.politico.eu/article/pola...

In 2014/15 the Lords rejected/let die the EU Referendum Bill - a PMB passed by the Commons (and supported by Cameron) to hold a referendum on EU membership

I think one can make an inference that my view is not far off that of then ministers.

If what you claim is right though, then the Salisbury convention is redundant/otiose

Indeed in the Rwanda saga the govt grounded it's arguments on its manifesto commitment (though that was a stretch)