Re Charles t.co/K9K6cN2nPh

So far the pace of debate in the Lords is pretty similar to that of the Commons Committee.

There's no filibustering

One important category of cases are serious criminals who can be deported under Art 33(2) RC but cannot because of Art 3

Not sure one can call grand chamber decisions a straw man! As for the on the ground impact without ftt decisions being published. But the point I was making is that the case law has moved on quite a bit from Ireland v UK

It's expended considerably since then, see Bouyid v Belgium on a one off slap in the face being a breach of Article 3

And in McCallum v Italy and Sanchez-Sanchez v UK the GC held that the same harm threshold applied in deportation cases as it did in domestic cases

Obviously, all of this can be used to try and slow things down. Equally, this is a bill on a contentious and emotive topic, and given the Lords' role as revising chamber, it's also not surprising that there are a vast number of amendments.

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