Comments by "Steven" (@Steven-vo4ee) on "Sunak’s plan to end asylum seeker claims from small boat arrivals" video.

@resiplayerz “UN Declarations are generally not legally binding; however, they represent the dynamic development of international legal norms and reflect the commitment of states to move in certain directions, abiding by certain principles.” That is from the UN itself. If you wish to trust your human rights to mere ‘norms’ and ‘commitments’ you deserve to have them stripped away. The decent into tyranny is rapid, the crawl out from it is slow and painful, slips retuning a country back to be bottom of to tyrannical pit are all to common… we only have to look to other members of the permanent UN Security Council member for example.
3
@resiplayerz What would be lost is international oversight, respect and standing. Enabling any government with a working majority to strip away rights (including yours) at their whim.
2
@resiplayerz Absolute sovereignty is non existent. I don’t trust any government or any political party with fundamental human rights, nor did those who founded the CoE and created the EHCR. Human rights must be universal, people who are accused and even convicted of crimes must have equal protections regardless of their nature, less we descend into the realm of political ‘crimes’. Human rights are not to be toyed with or left to the whim of politicians.
2
@resiplayerz Except in reality it isn’t absolutely sovereign, there are the separation of powers. Imagine if they didn’t exist, a government is elected with a large majority and a mandate to abolish the House of Lords, making parliament uniscerimonal. It then enacts primary legislation making it the government in perpetuity, ending democracy. If it were truly absolutely sovereign it could do so, however with the separation of powers the courts could at least attempt to prevent it from doing so. Also there’s Royal assent which enables the sovereign to refuse to sign acts of parliament into law both on their own volition and on the advice of the administration.
2
Still blaming the EU... tragic!
2
It was just a performatively cruel gimmick.
2
1. France isn't "exporting" anyone, they take far far greater numbers. 2. Leaving a country isn't prohibited by international law.
2
^ Another keyboard warrior who probably still has their septuagenarian mummy doing their laundry... ^
1
@jayden3759 A country breaking international law is on a complete different level of seriousness to an individual person breaking hastily drafted kneejerk national law.
1
@resiplayerz The UN charter on human rights is non-binding and the UN’s oversight across the board is grossly inadequate.
1
@resiplayerz We have gone from Charter to Covenant… Regardless of this, if we are to ignore the ECHR as you wish, why would we not ignore UN human rights decorations and oversight? You appear to believe we can have a government who’ll respect one but not another…
1
@resiplayerz Parliament Act does not remove veto to extend the lifetime of a parliament, which was the example I provided. Just because the sovereign has not exercised their power to refuse Royal Assent in three centuries doesn’t mean the power doesn’t exist. The sovereign also retains the power to dissolve parliament and dismiss a PM. These powers would cause a constitutional crisis if exercised, however its IMO extremely improbable that they would be, unless a constitutional crisis preexisted. Therefore as I stated parliament does not have absolute sovereignty. You can continue to pretend that it does, however we both know that you’re incorrect.
1
Our system is at braking point point due to mismanagement not asylum or immigration.
1
More guff to appease the swivels... small boats crossings are a non-issue for the majority. If the government were serious about ending the crossings, they'd provide legal and safe routes to asylum in the UK.
1
Incorrect the SOLAS convention is for flag carrying merchant ships, not dinghies operated by organised criminals.
1