Judges do not write legislation.

They do however make "the law" by making decisions which create a binding legal precedent based on their interpretation of the legislation in front of them.

I was wondering when someone would mention precedent. It's one of the most fundamental mechanisms by which our laws have evolved and to a large degree prevents laws being interpreted differently from one day to the next.

As to the issue May wants to deal with it is what she has decided is the misuse of a clause in the ECHR about the right to a family life being abused to prevent people being deported.

What she can do about that without breaking the UK's commitment to the ECHR is a bit of a mystery.

And before anyone says this is "Europe" interfering in domestic issues, no it isn't. We were signed up to the ECHR long before we joined the Common Market that eventually became the EU. All that happened a few years back was the ECHR was accepted into our legal framework which meant judges and others had to work within its laws directly. This saved the time, cost and effort of people having to appeal domestic rulings to the European Court. So had this not happened people would still be able to appeal based on "the right to a family life" to the court and such cases would just drag on even longer.

IMO if May gets it through that judges must interpret this clause differently then all that will do is force defendants to go to the European Court on appeal as they will claim the UK courts have not considered their human rights in accordance with the convention. UK courts being told to ignore the convention by the UK government won't cut it.

I can see the next step being this being used as an excuse to withdraw from the convention and no UK citizen in their rights minds should want that.

Agreed. Of course, our Common Law system is fundamentally different from other major Western European countries. It is for this reason that until the EU legal system is changed (to ours - superior in my opinion), then we should not be in the EU. We ARE different in this very fundamental way and the legal system goes to the very heart of what "Britishness" is.

You're right, Brown introduced the 10p rate and he also abolished it ... in favour of working tax credits.
However, those tax credits (which seemed a fine idea at the time, helping the "strivers"icon_wink.gif and the lack of sufficient increase in the minimum wage have led to employers holding down wages below levels at which they wouldn't even have had applicants if not for the working tax credits to make up the difference. (That's when they don't get JSA workers for free, paid for by the taxpayer).

To admit that error (which he has .. and when was the last time you saw a politician do that?) and say he'll re-introduce the 10p rate is, to my mind, admirable ... and I'd like see more of the same please.

Your thin sarcasm about it being "[ithe sort of big idea that only a great statesman could conceive[/i" is misplaced, I don't think it is being billed as a "big idea" and, to my mind, should be only a part of a raft of measures that are required, including a substantial rise in the minimum wage, at least to the touted "living wage" level.

El Barbudo's "Well I never knew that" Corner
.... did you know that the USA introduced a federal minimum wage as long ago as 1938 and Obama is trying to get it raised to $9?
No, neither did I until I read it today .... What a bunch o' commies, eh?

and your not making that up.....or perhaps you are to make a misguided and incorrect point

What are you on about?

There is no "EU legal system". All the countries in the EU have their own legal systems that work in whatever way they do.

There is the There is the European Court of Justice but that doesn't preside over a legal system. The EU has many rules and regulations such as how duty is applied etc and it is up to member states national courts to enforce those rules. The European Court of Justice tries to ensure the rules being applied by the national courts are applied consistently across the EU but that doesn't sit in judgement of cases directly. National courts do that based on guidance form the ECJ if required.

It only gets involved in its so called areas of competencies where it determines if national governments are applying the law properly. That doesn't affect how our courts reach judgements in terms of precedent or the way in which our legal system works. The ECJ is in effect the final court of appeal on EU law but only EU law. Not national law or criminal law etc.

There is nothing incompatible with the our legal system and the ECJ. It is in effect a court of appeal relating to very specific areas - EU law.

Then we have the European Court of Human Rights which is completely different again which we have always agreed to be subject to ever since we helped set it up in 1959.

Bottom line is neither the ECJ or the ECtHR are incompatible with our legal system.

I was just being brief and sloppy. As I said most European countries operate under a different legal framework. That includes all the dominant EU members. They influence EU policy and thinking.

Absolutely spot on. I really dont know why people can't see this.

It's gonna be interesting to see Theresa May and some of the pitchfork brigade define how serious a "serious crime" will be. Or will it be simply an arbitrary decision after conviction?

They've seconded Ken Clarke to be the judge of this

I don't believe a word of that.
You said "[iIt is for this reason that until the EU legal system is changed (to ours - superior in my opinion), then we should not be in the EU[/i.".
That cannot mean what you then said it it meant, regardless of brevity and sloppiness.

Each country has its own legal system ... isn't that what you want?
Then you say they should change to fit ours ... christ almighty .. you really, really don't get what the EU is for, you just want-out.
Why? you don't know, you just want-out.

Under which part of the law can you deport a British citizen? or have you just not thought this through properly?

I'd be quite happy to pay for British citizens to join their foreign spouses overseas. As I said, they could be given the option.

I do not believe that we should allow foreign citizens to stay in this country if they commit rape , murder, drug smuggling, people smuggling, armed robbery etc. As soon as they are sentenced we should start to set in place the paperwork for deportation once their sentence has been completed. Personally I would have them in a van to the airport directly from the prison.

The issues, as in most human rights cases or H & S, are poorly worded legislation or poor interpretation. I don't believe that anyone should be tortured, put to death, jailed without trial etc. I am quite happy to have refugees, EU citizens and those that jump through hoops to get work permits or become British citizens stay providing they don't abuse the hospitality of our country by committing violent crimes.

And if they don't want to go, or feel that the payment isn't enough? What then?

The point Dave O made was that the ECHR exists regardless of the HRA. You have those rights and so do I, again, pretty much regardless of what any British politician does.

By deporting a foreign criminal married to a British person, you could be seen to be infringing on the right to family life of the British citizen, who has the right to live here and benefit from the terms of the ECHR. The court would need to decide whether that was the case and UKBA would, by and large, have to go along with the courts's decision.

I'd suggest that it is UKBA's, and Theresa May's, poor interpretation of the legislation that is the main root of the problem here. Why else do they lose so often in court? Partly because they take it to court in the first place, for political and ideological reasons, rather than common sense.

Bringing a cat wouldn't help, as there's no reason why the cat could not go back with them. Far better to get a cat here.

I don't get the "right to a family life" issue, not in the context of deportation for serious crime, which if proven, would otherwise require a custodial sentence.
A custodial sentence, by its very nature, deprives a person of freedom and thereby deprives them of a family life.

Depends if being able to be visited by family and if their rights to visit the convict are covered by this clause.

I would say that depending on the interpretation of an individual judge the right to family life could be applied to any custodial sentence. Afterall, a parent couldn't read to their kids at night, attend family weddings, birthday parties, parents evenings etc. You could also argue that having a curfew or tag prevents you attending family events in the evening e.g. a wedding reception, taking kids to the cinema etc.

I would say that you have to put the safety of the rest of society e.g. our human right not to be raped or murdered in front of those of the indvidual.

Clearly you can't. Or no one would be in prison. That doesn't mean deporting someone could not be considered to impact on their family life.



What has that got to do it? No one is saying let rapists and murders off Scott free.

What I was trying to get across is that the right to a family life is a very wishy-washy definition that depending on different people's interpretation could cover a wide variety of situations. The term "family life" needs defining better e.g. I could argue not being able to say goodnight and read a bedtime story to my kids was affecting my bonding with them, and hence my family life, if I was imprisoned, though I'm pretty sure if it went to court that I would lose.

If we can ban some foreign citizens from entering the country due to them posing a potential security/law and order risk, although they haven't as yet committed a crime in this country, then surely we should be able to deport foreign nationals who have actually committed serious crimes here.

We also seem to be rather good at preventing an overseas national that has legitimately married a British national from enjoying a family life by refusing them a visa or residency. I don't see the sense in not allowing law abiding spouses in to the country but allowing violent criminals to stay.

The suspension of that right is one of the punishments for committing the crime.