withdrawing from the echr?>> i think that's an absolute you know, could replicate the you know, we could replicate the relevant aspects in uk law and at least have control over what we're doing. you know, rwanda is a question , but the a separate question, but the first thing in fixing any problem and have some problem and we do have some serious problems in this country is get control. that's what is to get control. that's what we do. we need to do. >> so plenty of food for thought for the politicians coming up. tom, back to you. now in the studio. be interested studio. we'll be interested to see have to say. see what they have to say. >> catherine, we of >> well, catherine, we will of course, back you once course, be back to you once we've what the politicians we've heard what the politicians have say. thank you very much have to say. thank you very much for those questions. we'll do our to put them to the our best to put them to the politicians this morning. but for john, sergeant for the meantime, john, ser

tells more about how people within the party feel about the echr.- party feel about the echr.arty feel about the echr. looks, the honest answer— party feel about the echr. looks, the honest answer is _ party feel about the echr. looks, the honest answer is that - party feel about the echr. looks, the honest answer is that opinion | party feel about the echr. looks, i the honest answer is that opinion is divided, there are some conservatives think there is no problem and it is constraining the uk in attempting to stop people crossing the channel on targets. you might remedy the first rwanda flight due to stave off last summer was locked in the end because of a ruling on the european court on human rights so they blame the e hrc for some of the delays in fomenting that policy. there are others that say that being part of international treaties on human rights is a good thing, something that should be encouraged and that leaving it would be hugely problematic for the uk, not least because it would have an impact on under international agreements the uk as part of and that debate

it's not not the echr, which not the it's not the echr, which is for 170,000 backlog. >> it's the echr un convention on refugees was set up in the aftermath of the second world war when the situation was entirely different. >> we don't need the echr to tell us how to behave. we can have our own human rights legislation in this country. we do not need to be told how to do it by judges, by having countries that stick by the rules it. rules in it. >> helps other it the >> it helps other it helps the whole together. the whole thing together. that's the whole thing together. that's the wholewas about their >> it was about their interfering our interfering with what our government do. interfering with what our govirnment do. interfering with what our govi thought do. interfering with what our govi thought whole.. >> i thought the whole. >> i thought the whole. >> the moment it's >> but at the moment it's a british court. >> we could take back control and want. and do what we want. >> i think what >> i mean, i think what the miranda's smokescreen, miranda's a smokescreen, but at the british t

, the echr , you know better echr, the echr, you know better than most how much i despise the surrenderbut the echr is pretty much embodied in the agreements we have there. people raise that it doesn't. no one has to have a tantrum. all they need to do is say, you said you'd do this in return for this. you haven't done it. return for this. you haven't doneit.so return for this. you haven't done it. so we will now hamper trade other relations with trade and other relations with with you in response to what you've done. we are not the problem with this country ever since the 1970s is that it has given away so much of its sovereignty and people don't realise how little room for manoeuvre. a british government has in these matters. i would wish it were otherwise, but if you want, if people want to take those those routes, they have to understand that they have hard consequences which they may find hard to deal with and they expect, don't like it. i don't expect, i don't like it. i don't advocate it. just saying advocate it. i'm just saying this what we face. this is what we face. >> there a

it's not not the echr, which not the it's not the echr, which is for 170,000 backlog. >> it's the echrnvention on refugees was set up in the aftermath of the second world war when the situation was entirely different. >> we don't need the echr to tell us how to behave. we can have our own human rights legislation in this country. we do not need to be told how to do it by judges, by having countries that stick by the rules it. rules in it. >> helps other it the >> it helps other it helps the whole together. the whole thing together. that's the whole thing together. that's the wholewas about their >> it was about their interfering our interfering with what our government do. interfering with what our govirnment do. interfering with what our govi thought do. interfering with what our govi thought whole.. >> i thought the whole. >> i thought the whole. >> the moment it's >> but at the moment it's a british court. >> we could take back control and want. and do what we want. >> i think what >> i mean, i think what the miranda's smokescreen, miranda's a smokescreen, but at the british the mom

he says it's not leaving the echr. not not leaving the echr.etter slippery slope. we've had better human rights laws uk for human rights laws in the uk for centuries. the judge in strasbourg decision on strasbourg made his decision on political , lawful political grounds, not lawful grounds . grounds. >> well, yes. i mean, i think that, you know, the echr is 1951. was it ? i that, you know, the echr is 1951. was it? i think it was 1951. was it? i think it was 1951. it was it was speaking to a world that was very different to the world we're in now. the global migration flows are very, very different. and i think they were feeling and you're quite right to point out that only russia and belarus are not part of but a lot of of it. but there's a lot of european leaders. maloney and italy. in france as well. italy. macron in france as well. do to talk about do are starting to talk about migration suggesting that migration and suggesting that the current legislation, current international laws, are very restrictive. when it comes to deaung restricti

do we need to leave the echr in order to stop that ? echr in order to stop that?ll, i've just answered. i don't think it will be possible to do it. i think those rulings , as we've seen before , we can , as we've seen before, we can ignore. i mean, there are other ways you could look to renegotiate with the uk for you could look at ways of just disentangling from certain judgements. but like i said, you won't have the votes to get that through the house. even though i have every sympathy with that point of view because we can't have perverse rulings coming from the european court on human rights affecting what goes on in this country that has gone through the proper democratic legislative process . legislative process. >> yeah, i agree with you on the echr being a red herring. for example . well, george maloney, example. well, george maloney, the prime minister of italy, declared a state of emergency in april this year, effectively stop seeing boats arriving across the med into italy in november 2022. polling and put barbed wire along their border with belarus to

now the echr this is the thing.people are saying there's going us to going to be pressure on us to leave echr, don't we put leave the echr, why don't we put it a referendum? it to a referendum? >> well, can i say , first of >> well, can i say, first of all, i put down the all, that i put down the amendment about three years ago to then borders bill, which to the then borders bill, which would have overridden the whole of the echr . of the echr. >> can you hear me all right? >> can you hear me all right? >> i've got you, bill. >> i've got you, bill. >> yes, i'm glued to you. every word. carry on. >> yeah, that's right. >> yeah, that's right. >> so put down this amendment which said that we were going to deal with the asylum seekers , deal with the asylum seekers, those who are not refugees. >> that is the key issue . if >> that is the key issue. if they're genuine refugees , it's they're genuine refugees, it's a different story . if you're different story. if you're deaung different story. if you're dealing with peop

that's the purpose of the echr . it's not about the echr.undamental rights are not to what rebecca objects to, but the right to life, the right not to have inhumane and degrading treatment , the right to get married, the right to have freedom of expression. these are all fundamental human rights that protects tom, ellie and protects rebecca, tom, ellie and me. that's what it's about. it's not about migration . and it not about migration. and it guarantees a fundamental rights of individuals from abuse by the state. now if we don't have the echr , where do we go to the last echr, where do we go to the last resort we have is the european court of human rights to oversee abuse of power by the state. so i don't think that people really understand what the echr is about and without the protection of the human rights act, which bnngs of the human rights act, which brings it into domestic legislation, the government would have the power to do whatever it wants. it could breach our rights, our fundamental rights, and lastly, it's part of the good fr

that's one of the clauses of the echr. >> me you think that we could exit the echr and there would be any of our rights and all the rest of it in this country? no, no, we wouldn't. >> we have common law as well. so our fundamental freedoms and our human rights are already written the british written into the british law, whether scottish whether it's english or scottish , centuries. so we , over the centuries. so we don't need it. we need to get out of it because we do have this problem now, which was never envisaged in 1950 when it was of this mass was written of this mass migration and people playing the system. that's what we need system. and that's what we need to get out of because that is a massive problem for this nation at the moment. >> well, i absolutely agree. i completely think we should be out of the echr for all the same reasons that supported brexit reasons that i supported brexit back in 2016. i think if you believe in national sovereign 80, which i do, then the only people who should have a say in the laws that govern this country should be british people . we should

over prisoner voting rights, parliament is always and remains in the meantime free to override the echr rulings. now you may be you probably are very familiar with dukes, marquesses, viscounts and barons , but we viscounts and barons, but we will be joined by somerset's favourite baronet system was introduced by james, the first as a means of raising money and the legacy of the practise continues to grace god's own county through sir benjamin slade, the seventh baronet who we will be hearing from shortly . plus the state of the nation from somerset's denouement will sitwell will be teaching me to how perform the seemingly impossible task of cooking the great british culinary phenomenon of kippers smoked scottish herring, but only after we exclusively reveal the story behind it, involving a certain form of prime minister. coming to my london home after he kippered the eu in a speech of the nation starts now . the nation starts now. as always , i want to hear from as always, i want to hear from you. it's the most important part of the programme. so email me mail mog at gbnews.com. and we'

and i think that leaving the echr would be a grave mistake . it's not serious grave mistake.ot serious politics, tom. you know, i still don't follow precisely what leaving the echr would do when it comes to things like the rwanda policy. the court of appeal didn't say that sending people to a third country was unlawful or in breach of the echr what they wanted was more evidence that rwanda was a safe country . now we define safe country. now we define safe country. now we define safe country in domestic law. the lord chief justice thought that the government had provided enough evidence. the other two judges disagree. that's what the issue boils down to now. and that's what i think we should all be focusing upon. i support the policy absolute supported, but i don't think that debates about the echr help anybody. it's a massive red herring and we should move on and focus on what's important when it comes to this vital issue of small boats. was it not the case that those individuals who were sitting on that plane , that sitting on that plane, that original plane that was ready

over prisoner voting rights, parliament is always and remains in the meantime free to override the echrulings. now you may be you probably are very familiar with dukes, marquesses, viscounts and barons , but we viscounts and barons, but we will be joined by somerset's favourite baronet system was introduced by james, the first as a means of raising money and the legacy of the practise continues to grace god's own county through sir benjamin slade, the seventh baronet who we will be hearing from shortly . plus the state of the nation from somerset's denouement will sitwell will be teaching me to how perform the seemingly impossible task of cooking the great british culinary phenomenon of kippers smoked scottish herring, but only after we exclusively reveal the story behind it, involving a certain form of prime minister. coming to my london home after he kippered the eu in a speech of the nation starts now . the nation starts now. as always , i want to hear from as always, i want to hear from you. it's the most important part of the programme. so email me mail mog at gbnews.com. and we've

and that may mean leaving the echr got no problem with echr i've got no problem with that.mon law that has always been a and that apply a principle and that is apply the the law. the spirit of the law. >> we now know that there >> and we now know that there are a raft of ngos, charities , are a raft of ngos, charities, activists, campaigners and lawyers who are not. and politicians who refuse to pursue the spirit of the law . the spirit of the law. >> exactly. and this is this is the key point again, on this for me, henry, which is it's all very well and good people saying, look at this amount of taxpayers money that is being wasted the asylum seeker wasted on the asylum seeker backlog. the people backlog. but a lot of the people that saying that they're that are saying that they're solution open borders. lot solution is open borders. a lot of them campaign for it. lot of them campaign for it. a lot of them campaign for it. a lot of are actively in my book, of them are actively in my book, actively facilitating the trade of human beings across continents to britain, then he

is it the echr blocking the rwanda flights plan?— flights plan?ghts plan? basically they issued interim measure to _ flights plan? basically they issued interim measure to prevent - flights plan? basically they issued interim measure to prevent these | interim measure to prevent these first flights to go to rwanda. however it does not mean that the whole plan will be considered by the european court of human rights as violating the echr. interim measurements —— measuresjust delay the flights until they deal with the situation. it does not mean that there is any complete ban on extradition coming from the european court of human rights. in my preparation for this interview and i looked at latestjudgment of the european court of human rights and quite a few of them actually allow people to be extradited. in the latestjudgment people to be extradited. in the latest judgment allows extradition to the us on a slightly different grounds, but still there is no absolute ban on that. the uk governmentjust needs to establish a proper system with dealing wit

they don't want us to leave echr. they want leave the echr.nt rwanda they don't want rwanda to work. they don't want us putting in us to be putting people in detention centres or offering any deterrent. they any kind of deterrent. they don't to be pushing the don't want us to be pushing the boats back. and stephen, i'm just to throw to just going to throw it over to you on patrick, i wish you on this. patrick, i wish you'd ask me what you'd actually ask me what i think instead telling me, think instead of telling me, well, you, you, i've well, i've asked you, you, i've asked you twice. you've told me so. we go. stephen, you so. there we go. stephen, do you not that we are just being not think that we are just being undermined of people undermined by a group of people who want this who don't really want this to work? >> well, there's no doubt that when look at the whole when you look at the whole politics this, there is an politics of this, there is an argument used by the argument being used by the labour as a labour party that see this as a s

still to come with my expert panel, what has echr european court what has the echr european court of rights is just in case ever done for us? and should footballers still be taking the knee?i footballers still be taking the knee? i mean, come on, we went through it all last year, didn't me? and with junior doctors on strike, we look at some of the me? and with junior doctors on strikeande look at some of the me? and with junior doctors on strikeand moneyt some of the me? and with junior doctors on strikeand money spent; of the me? and with junior doctors on strikeand money spent on the time and money spent on inclusive language and if you're a woman, you're going to love this it more alienating this bit. is it more alienating than inclusivity? the only people aren't being people that aren't being included are women. aren't they really? on really? but more to come on that. out next. after what really? but more to come on thatweather's next. after what really? but more to come on thatweather's doing, after what really? but more to come on thatweather's doing, iter what really? but more

still to come with my expert panel, what has echr european court what has the echr european court of rights is just in case ever done for us? and should footballers still be taking the knee?i footballers still be taking the knee? i mean, come on, we went through it all last year, didn't me? and with junior doctors on strike, we look at some of the me? and with junior doctors on strikeande look at some of the me? and with junior doctors on strikeand moneyt some of the me? and with junior doctors on strikeand money spent; of the me? and with junior doctors on strikeand money spent on the time and money spent on inclusive language and if you're a woman, you're going to love this it more alienating this bit. is it more alienating than inclusivity? the only people aren't being people that aren't being included are women. aren't they really? on really? but more to come on that. out next. after what really? but more to come on thatweather's next. after what really? but more to come on thatweather's doing, after what really? but more to come on thatweather's doing, iter what really? but more

if we were not part of echr.you look at echr and people getting so worked up about it, there have been 400 rulings by the european convention in the last ten years that have not been complied with in spain or italy. they don't comply with something like 60, 63% of them. yeah, but we do. tim france. it's 30. we tend to comply with most of them . the comply with most of them. the whole thing needs to be properly reformed. and frankly, if we were to go against one of these one of these rulings , it should one of these rulings, it should not be such a big issue because frankly, other european nations are doing it for several for several years. >> i feel we're replaying the brexit debate. let's reform the eu from within. and we decided in the end we had to leave. tim, thank you . thank you. >> the this is not part of >> the eu, this is not part of the eu and there are other countries unhappy as countries unhappy about it as well. pyjama injunctions well. these pyjama injunctions which are an absolute farce, need absol

if we were not part of echr.u look at echr and people getting so worked up about it, there have been 400 rulings by the european convention in the last ten years that have not been complied with in spain or italy. they don't comply with something like 60, 63% of them. yeah, but we do. tim france. it's 30. we tend to comply with most of them . the comply with most of them. the whole thing needs to be properly reformed. and frankly, if we were to go against one of these one of these rulings , it should one of these rulings, it should not be such a big issue because frankly, other european nations are doing it for several for several years. >> i feel we're replaying the brexit debate. let's reform the eu from within. and we decided in the end we had to leave. tim, thank you . thank you. >> the this is not part of >> the eu, this is not part of the eu and there are other countries unhappy as countries unhappy about it as well. pyjama injunctions well. these pyjama injunctions which are an absolute farce, need absolut

to leave the echr would mean leaving the council of europe.mpany as russia and belarus, the only other two european countries are not members of the council of europe. i don't think any conservative would want to be in this company. figs don't think any conservative would want to be in this company. as you have stated — want to be in this company. as you have stated it _ want to be in this company. as you have stated it is _ want to be in this company. as you have stated it is not _ want to be in this company. as you have stated it is not conservative l have stated it is not conservative policy but it seems to come up every now and again amongst conservative members, it is an idea flirted with by theresa may, borisjohnson. why is that, why does this notion keep coming up? i is that, why does this notion keep coming up?— coming up? i think all too often --eole coming up? i think all too often peeple don't — coming up? i think all too often people don't understand - coming up? i think all too often people don't understand how. coming up? i think

echr echr will probably debate for years to come. now a slightly different angle.s a conservative member of parliament for ashfield. he is deputy chairman of the conservative party . he's of the conservative party. he's also a gb news presenter on friday evenings and lee joins me down the line from his constituency. lee not for the first time you have caused total and utter outrage. i listen to the today programme on the bbc. they were barely able to control themselves because you've told illegal immigrants to f off back to france if they don't like going on the barges. the bibby stockholm in portland harbour , stockholm in portland harbour, lee, you know all of us at times in life go a bit too far. and we need to admit perhaps we've made a bit of mistake. you a bit of a mistake. are you apology ing the words you've apology ing for the words you've uttered? . do you not think uttered? no. do you not think the use of the f word in this context was perhaps bad taste ? context was perhaps bad taste? >> no. i'll tell you what it was, nigel. it's borne out of frustratio

if the the uk to quit the echr if the rwandan plan is blocked .. >> well, let's get more on this now with gb news home and security editor mark white, who is with us in the studio. and mark, you have some breaking news. >> yeah, from a gb news source who's out in the middle of the channel today confirming to us that a border force unmanned drone has crashed into the engush drone has crashed into the english channel and it may well have sunk . we're not quite sure have sunk. we're not quite sure where exactly in the channel, but it was out there monitoring those channel migrants coming across in a very busy day. you're seeing here pictures of bofis you're seeing here pictures of boris johnson when he was prime minister, touring lydd airport and looking at some of the drones and other technology that the coastguard and border force are using in in the small boats crisis to monitor those coming across the channel. we don't know exactly which drone it was, whether it was a border force drone or indeed potentially a coastguard drone. we're told that it

echr echr will probably debate for years to come. now a slightly different angle.s a conservative member of parliament for ashfield. he is deputy chairman of the conservative party . he's of the conservative party. he's also a gb news presenter on friday evenings and lee joins me down the line from his constituency. lee not for the first time you have caused total and utter outrage. i listen to the today programme on the bbc. they were barely able to control themselves because you've told illegal immigrants to f off back to france if they don't like going on the barges. the bibby stockholm in portland harbour , stockholm in portland harbour, lee, you know all of us at times in life go a bit too far. and we need to admit perhaps we've made a bit of mistake. you a bit of a mistake. are you apology ing the words you've apology ing for the words you've uttered? . do you not think uttered? no. do you not think the use of the f word in this context was perhaps bad taste ? context was perhaps bad taste? >> no. i'll tell you what it was, nigel. it's borne out of frustratio

and leave the and david, we need to leave the echr stop the boats. that's echr to stop the boats. that will work. it goes on. >> it does. and barry saying again, why does the government not the navy to not call in the royal navy to stop mid—channel stop these boats? mid—channel they've this. when they've trained for this. when is training going be is this training going to be implemented? that implemented? let us ask that question guest this question to our guest this morning. johnson with morning. stanley johnson is with us. good morning, stanley. thank you joining us. why you so much forjoining us. why can't the royal get can't the royal navy get involved, think, and stop involved, do you think, and stop the boats? mid—channel >> it probably could, but that would require a political decision, i think. and i said thatis decision, i think. and i said that is the answer. and the government would have to say we are going to stop them. we don't want them to come. and then it would have to square that with various international international commitments. and i think that's the governm

and atives conservatives, would actually vote left the echr. and thees if we left the echr.people that have left the european of human european convention of human rights, are russia rights, as we know, are russia and and understandably, and belarus. and understandably, neither indeed neither rishi sunak nor indeed sir want to be sir keir starmer want to be amongst those ranks. >> but canada , australia, >> no, but canada, australia, new zealand, etcetera aren't subject to the european court of human rights, and they seem to be seem pretty decent be seem to be pretty decent places. so i don't buy that argument that, yes, there are polls that show that that voters won't necessarily accept that. i wouldn't place too much faith in those because the issue those polls because the issue hasn't actually been hasn't actually really been debated explored . should we debated or explored. should we have own poll this morning? have our own poll this morning? >> we that. i mean, if >> maybe we do that. i mean, if you're watching at home and you're watching at home and you're alex is you'

so you know, we could say , well, we're staying echr, say, well, we're staying echr, but we're not going want to complain about that, well, look at germany's record of complying with rulings. you know , look at some rulings. you know, look at some other countries records . well, other countries records. well, fine. you know, if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for them, it's good enough britain. don't enough for britain. we don't actually your we're actually like your ruling. we're not with it. now not going to comply with it. now thatis not going to comply with it. now that is another and it's that is another option. and it's less drastic than coming out altogether . altogether. >> well, is an option that >> well, that is an option that we could look at. i love the idea of ann widdecombe telling britain to break law. and britain to break the law. and it's great to talk to you tonight. thanks for joining it's great to talk to you tonight. thanks forjoining us. it's great to talk to you tonigcoming nks for joining us. it's great to talk to you tonigcoming up forjoining us. it's

what about getting out of the echr getting out of the echr is unthinkable for most people in governmentlot of hard work, which is, but for work, which it is, but for similar reasons as the opposition to brexit. people don't like change and that's never more true than of politicians or lawyers. they like work within like to work within the parameters that they've been set and jolly if other and they're jolly happy if other people set those parameters for them. the big question them. i suppose the big question mark over getting out of the echr is and i think a lot of people would be prepared to listen idea getting listen to the idea of getting out if you could put out of the echr if you could put to a sensible, viable to them a sensible, viable alternative. as suppose alternative. but as i suppose even brexiteers have found out , even brexiteers have found out, just because you leave something, it doesn't necessarily mean that people necessarily mean that the people you replace you put in charge to replace that enough that thing are competent enough to do it. and if you look at the record

so you know, we could say , well, we're staying echr, say, well, we're staying echr, but we're not goingyou want to complain about that, well, look at germany's record of complying with rulings. you know , look at some rulings. you know, look at some other countries records . well, other countries records. well, fine. you know, if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for them, it's good enough britain. don't enough for britain. we don't actually your we're actually like your ruling. we're not with it. now not going to comply with it. now thatis not going to comply with it. now that is another and it's that is another option. and it's less drastic than coming out altogether . altogether. >> well, is an option that >> well, that is an option that we could look at. i love the idea of ann widdecombe telling britain to break law. and britain to break the law. and it's great to talk to you tonight. thanks for joining it's great to talk to you tonight. thanks forjoining us. it's great to talk to you tonigcoming nks for joining us. it's great to talk to you tonigcoming up forjoining us. i

well, i'm sorry, leave the echr.i'm sorry, you're going to have to you're going to have if you want to going to have to if you want to win election because you're win the election because you're not stop the boats. so not going to stop the boats. so if you're literally to the if you're literally going to the election a policy of of election on a policy of more of the same it comes to the same when it comes to illegal you going illegal migration, you are going to and it's not to be wiped out. and it's not that labour to do any that labour are going to do any better. just that better. it's just that conservative voters do not believe that this policy approach working. think approach is working. so i think the go to the the tories must go to the election at the very least, a election on at the very least, a referendum to leave the echr. >> don't think that's to >> i don't think that's going to happen. think what the tories happen. i think what the tories are that they are thinking is that they actually stop the actually

well, i'm sorry, leave the echr.i'm sorry, you're going to have to you're going to have if you want to going to have to if you want to win election because you're win the election because you're not stop the boats. so not going to stop the boats. so if you're literally to the if you're literally going to the election a policy of of election on a policy of more of the same it comes to the same when it comes to illegal you going illegal migration, you are going to and it's not to be wiped out. and it's not that labour to do any that labour are going to do any better. just that better. it's just that conservative voters do not believe that this policy approach working. think approach is working. so i think the go to the the tories must go to the election at the very least, a election on at the very least, a referendum to leave the echr. >> don't think that's to >> i don't think that's going to happen. think what the tories happen. i think what the tories are that they are thinking is that they actually stop the actually

to leave the echr because because the fact is it benefits all of us. >> would nick leaving the echre it easier to deal with the situation of boats over the channel? >> well, we don't know but it might be worth trying because we have something. have to do something. see, robert just saying robert jenrick is just saying he's whatever's he's prepared to do whatever's necessary this is an necessary because this is an emergency situation. now, the law have described it as law society have described it as using sledgehammer to crack using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. not really nut. yeah, it's not really a nut, it? because it's such nut, is it? because it's such a big problem. it's going to be a problem all of europe, problem for all of europe, all of coming of the west in the coming years. i to be mature i think we have to be mature about it and we have to consider all you the all options. you know, the guardian well, guardian was saying, oh, well, we'll we're we'll be an outlier. we're just russia but that's russia and us. but that's just a sort way of putting it. >> but but that is a

to leave the echr because because the fact is it benefits all of us. >> would nick leaving the echre it easier to deal with the situation of boats over the channel? >> well, we don't know but it might be worth trying because we have something. have to do something. see, robert just saying robert jenrick is just saying he's whatever's he's prepared to do whatever's necessary this is an necessary because this is an emergency the necessary because this is an eme society the necessary because this is an eme society have the necessary because this is an eme society have described:he necessary because this is an eme society have described it! necessary because this is an emesociety have described it as law society have described it as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. it's not really nut. yeah, it's not really a nut, it? because it's such nut, is it? because it's such a big problem. it's going to be a problem all of europe, problem for all of europe, all of coming of the west in the coming years. i to be mature i think we have to be mature about it and we have to consider all know, all

., , ways, the echr commitments make them ve difficult. �* , . , ., very difficult.ey might see the l as it were, they might see the rwanda blockade, or are they angry a perceived government incompetence over this? it perceived government incompetence overthis? it is perceived government incompetence overthis? , , ., perceived government incompetence overthis? , ., over this? it is very hard to disentangle _ over this? it is very hard to disentangle them. - over this? it is very hard to disentangle them. there i over this? it is very hard to disentangle them. there isj over this? it is very hard to - disentangle them. there is anger at thejudges and the disentangle them. there is anger at the judges and the sense that the government can't govern even when it is trying, and that things get jammed up, but ultimately, this is not about the courts. the courts did not about the courts. the courts did not stop the home office building a proper detention estate. that was the home office. the courts did not lead to understaffing of the home office processing facilities, that

i don't think to leave the echr.hat we deal with law in this country is that every time a case breaks the initial law that law then becomes more complex and there are more adjuncts to that original law. so it's almost as our system has developed, it has become far more complex, which is why you're getting like the aeroplanes not taking off to go to rwanda because it's being held up in the courts for perfectly legitimate reasons. but yes, some of them are playing the system. i'm not i'm not that. but this is not denying that. but this is this is not that. i'm sorry , this is not that. i'm sorry, 175,000. that is a they from what i know, they don't even have enough staff to staff it. >> well, yeah, i would i would anyone have enough staff if you've got if you've got what. because a lot of because there's a lot of training that's got to take place . place. >> the job actually quite >> the job is actually quite complex but it seems to be deliberately complicated because let's put it this way, even if we turn around we le

the international criminal court and the echr, and not one was considered, therefore, in these conditionsy hope for the triumph of justice for us was the investigative committee of the russian federation. to date, about three thousand bodies have been initiated against more than 700 ukrainian nationalists. today, employees of the investigative committee record the consequences of shelling, initiate cases and form an evidence base, as soon as the territory was liberated , teams of employees of the investigative committee went there to collect evidence without delay one of those areas of major priority. this, of course, is an area of ​​work with victims. the victims are the civilians who have been there all these years, who were not able to receive normal human objective protection , banal protection. just because of the lawlessness as a result of the shelling, you suffered in the men's room. what kind of damage post in where you were and completely house roof damaged property. how many tried to extinguish, so as not to tan, so much poisoning was there? on the territories of the lugansk and

over prisoner voting rights, parliament is always and remains in the meantime free to override the echray be you probably are very familiar with dukes, marquesses, viscounts and barons , but we viscounts and barons, but we will be joined by somerset's favourite baronet system was introduced by james, the first as a means of raising money and the legacy of the practise continues to grace god's own county

over prisoner voting rights, parliament is always and remains in the meantime free to override the echray be you probably are very familiar with dukes, marquesses, viscounts and barons , but we viscounts and barons, but we will be joined by somerset's favourite baronet system was introduced by james, the first as a means of raising money and the legacy of the practise continues to grace god's own county through sir benjamin slade, the seventh baronet who we will be hearing from shortly . plus the state of the nation from somerset's denouement will sitwell will be teaching me to how perform the seemingly impossible task of cooking the great british culinary phenomenon of kippers smoked scottish herring, but only after we exclusively reveal the story behind it, involving a certain form of prime minister. coming to my london home after he kippered the eu in a speech of the nation starts now .

they all need to know that if we lose in the supreme court, do we then look at leaving the echr?the home office would lose in the supreme court. it would depend what the court said. that the law said. it's possible that the law could changed and it's could be changed and it's possible that there could be some modification of the scheme in rwanda in extremists. i suppose the uk could leave the european convention. that would be pretty dramatic to leave a convention like that. hopefully the legal problems can be solved without that being necessary. >> no , that you did this review >> no, that you did this review into our border force and you gave it to former home secretary priti patel. i just wouldn't mind your analysis of the home office. i mean, back in the day when he was home secretary i think it was 17 years ago, john reid fit for reid said it wasn't fit for purpose. the phrase i'm always told about the home office is that a basket case. do you that it's a basket case. do you agree does it need agree with that? does it need total reform this time? >> i know the home office re

convention, the echr or we see a redrawing of the is somethingconvention, the echr or we see a redrawingis something that'sltion, which is something that's definitely not on the table at the moment. there going to be the moment. there is going to be this continuing problem this sort of continuing problem and wide issue and it is a european wide issue and it is a european wide issue and ifs and it is a european wide issue and it's only an issue and indeed it's only an issue that's going even more that's going to become even more pressing as the populations of, say, africa, for example, increase over the next few decades. of people decades. the number of people wanting the channel wanting to cross the channel grows and you grows ever larger and do you think an embarrassment think this is an embarrassment for the government? >> mean, supposed to be >> i mean, it's supposed to be health week this week and yet here we are still very much focusing on last week's week, which week. and we know which was boat week. and we know what a disaster that with what a disaster that was with everything wha

that's not the position echr. that's not the position that the immigration minister takes.all, a huge mess . and if the department mess. and if the department who's trying to supervise this, who's trying to supervise this, who's trying to make crossing the small boats, you know, these crossings stop, can't agree amongst themselves. no no wonder the policy seems to be in such chaos at the moment. >> it sounds fundamentally, catherine, as if they have totally different priorities when it comes to how to stop the boats and also how to speak to the public, what to announce, what to hand to the press even i'm going to be speaking to charles henry galois later, who's a leader of the francis generation frexit group, in asking him about the £480 million that's going to the french, because lots of questions coming from tory backbench viewers over where that's where that money is going and why we're not seeing the results. we might expect . but results. we might expect. but can we move on to something rather different because sadiq khan in the once again khan is in the papers once ag

the lefty lawyers or the echr or the lefty lawyers or the echr or the lefty lawyers or keir starmerr keir starmer or the remain establishment? the buck stops with the conservative government, and government, doesn't it? and as lee you to lee anderson said, you failed to control borders . control our borders. >> well, i said, right at the >> well, as i said, right at the top, the prime minister promised top, the prime minister promised to the boats. so i think to stop the boats. so i think when parliament returns , given when parliament returns, given these developments , he needs to these developments, he needs to explain to parliament now how we're to going do that. parliament is meant to be the fulcrum of the nation. the pm should come to parliament less than three weeks now and explain plain how exactly we are going to do it. but i would just say this i think it's worth pointing out, you know, you mentioned keir starmer, labour have no plan at all. labour's only plan is and this is an important point is to speed up the processing of asylum claims and let's be honest, that would b

we've got to look at our alternative options and i am not an advocate for leaving the echr it's not aake lightly. if the europeans lightly. but if the europeans aren't cooperate aren't to going cooperate with us, choice do we have other us, what choice do we have other than to leave the echr change the law and send the migrants to rwanda who crossed the channel illegally? >> i think this situation has been going on for so long, though, and i think that no matter where you are on the argument. right, whether you think we should be letting people them people in and giving them £100,000 in, or £100,000 to settle in, or whether you think that we should be boats be like shooting at the boats or something. it this is not working for anyone. right. okay. these being these people are being trafficked. a nice trafficked. it's not a nice situation. to your situation. but i think to your point like, well, what should point of like, well, what should we the french? so we do about the french? so i looked it up. the statistics are that they they are saying that they they, they are saying that they

you could leave echr yeah. leave the echr yeah. >> what saying is we've >> so what i'm saying is we'vethe eu before they can another can justify having another referendum . having said that, if referendum. having said that, if they were to have a referendum , they were to have a referendum, we would be voting to join an incredibly different eu to the one we left. how so? because this eu used to only have the right, for example, the eu is at its heart a wealth redistribution programme and the mechanism by which that was done was member states contributing money and then the and brussels, then divvying it out. now the eu, contrary actually to the initial treaties of the eu , initial treaties of the eu, borrows money on top of the money that it gets from its member states. so it is a very highly indebted institution . highly indebted institution. you've got very highly indebted countries made. they were highly indebted before lockdown, even more highly indebted now, and the other thing that we would have to do if we joined the eu now would be to adopt the euro. and we know from masses of

yet the echr , government. rights to a fair trial and a fair life in the uk , prevented us from getting him out of the uk. so here's something that starts off with good intent . you may argue good intent. you may argue that's been used in a sense against britain . against britain. >> well, you're right. the european convention on human rights was written at a time of war and we're in a time of war again. the overwhelming majority of refugees in the uk are from syria , iran, iraq, of refugees in the uk are from syria , iran, iraq , afghanistan, syria, iran, iraq, afghanistan, eritrea. all countries who are experiencing war. so the solution is not to get rid of our rights , but to deal with the our rights, but to deal with the problem. stop using slogans and swear words . let's come up with swear words. let's come up with a programme of action. you're spending huge amounts of money and £169,000 per person to send someone to rwanda. and we haven't sent a single person there. let's get some immigration officers. le

we have had them squabbling about leaving the echr, madcap ascension island scheme came back, we had completely failing to deal with this crisis, and now this today, where they clearly have not completed the safety checks properly, and the entire future of whether or not that badge can be usedis whether or not that badge can be used is now in question. so it is a catalogue of catastrophe and chaos, and government ministers should be hanging their heads in shame. in hanging their heads in shame. in terms of the government have said about the bibby stockholm, the have said they have been complying with uk health security agency, have gone above and beyond what has been recommended. are you disputing that basic fact? t recommended. are you disputing that basic fact? .., ., recommended. are you disputing that basicfact? ., ,, . ., ., basic fact? i cannot speculate about the recise basic fact? i cannot speculate about the precise details. _ basic fact? i cannot speculate about the precise details. what _ basic fact? i cannot speculate about the precise details. what we - basic fact? i can

>> i mean, is the difference between us and you, the echr ? sr between us and you, the echr?der to further our own? so number one policy aims, we anticipate that there would be, you know, what i hear called lefty lawyers . hear called lefty lawyers. >> yeah, lodging, all sorts of cases. there would be a mass of litigation action. so we lined up the laws as best we could to avoid that, to make sure , avoid that, to make sure, because after all, the parliament makes the law, not the lawyers . so the laws were the lawyers. so the laws were substantially changed in australia. i won't go into how we changed them. and secondly , we changed them. and secondly, we changed them. and secondly, we it is a fair point where australia is not part of the european, not part of europe, it's not part of the european convention on human rights. the uk is the strasbourg court has expanded its remit very substantially over the last few years and that is potentially , years and that is potentially, potentially not for certain, potentially not for certain, potentially a major legal obstacle, but we

but what we need to do is is he is right is change the law is he is right . the echr. you're . the echr. you're blairite project. we should leave altogether. but winston churchill project. liz has given you her thoughts. blair put it into law. but lizzie's giving you her thoughts on why. meghan, not only needs to look at fixing relations with the royal family, but the relationships with but also the relationships with our own family. it's time for lizzie's livet oh wow. >> and i am so livid. lizzie's livet oh wow. >> and i am so livid . and why >> and i am so livid. and why should meghan and harry never be allowed back in the royal family? well i'll tell you why. apart from trashing the royal family in books we've read spell maybe you haven't. you've been spared it. they've done their documentaries. we saw with oprah where they actually told a load of lies , actually said there was of lies, actually said there was alleged racist in the royal family. and i'll beloved queen passed away not knowing that you know who this racist actually was. well, there wasn't a racist because meg