The programme. Um, email me mail mog gbnews. Com. Now its time for the news of the day with polly middlehurst. Polly middlehurst. Jacob thank you. Good evening. Well, the top story is that the home secretary has said today migrants arriving in small boats have put an immeasurable pressure on the uks asylum system and the british taxpayer delivering a speech in washington in the united states, Suella Braverman also argued that being discriminated against for being gay or a woman wasnt enough to qualify for asylum. Um, where individuals are being persecuted. It is right that we offer sanctuary , but we that we offer sanctuary, but we will not be able to sustain an asylum system if in effect simply being gay or a woman or fearful of discrimination in your country of origin alone is sufficient to qualify for protection. Protection. Labour reacted with the shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper , saying the government cooper, saying the government had failed to set out any new plans to tackle the small boats crisis to try and target lesbian and gay people from countries like uganda, where they face serious persecution when they also only make up around 2 of asylum applications in the uk is just trying to distract people from her own failure where she should instead be getting a grip rather than ramping up the rhetoric and focusing on her failure to tackle the criminal gangs or to sort out the chaos in the asylum system. Sir ed in the asylum system. Sir ed davey says his party would make nhs and cancer treatments a top priority if his party were in power. The liberal democrat power. The liberal democrat leader told his partys conference in bournemouth today that the liberal democrats will rescue the nhs with more gps, more carers and Greater Investor in technology. He says hell ensure Cancer Patients will start treatment within two months of an urgent referral and that theyd been let down under the current government. The current government. I still think we could be doing so much better on cancer for far too many people are still waiting far too long for a diagnosis or to start treatment after being diagnosed used and im afraid to say theyve been let down and forgotten by this conservative government. Conservative government. The mayor of Greater Manchester has said he will take legal action against the government if the northern leg of hs2 is scrapped. Andy burnham says labour will build hs2 if it wins the election because a failure to do so would be massively implicating for the north. The Prime Minister is reported to be alarmed by the runaway cost of the high speed rail link believed to exceed £100 billion of taxpayers money and Water Companies will have to return £114 million to customers after falling short of set standards. The regulator, ofwat standards. The regulator, ofwat says most companies are failing to meet key targets on reducing pollution leakages and supply interruptions, while Customer Satisfaction continues to fall. Thames water is the company that must pay back the most £101 million. Southern water is next. Theyve got to pay back £43 million as ulez gb news across the uk on tv in your car, on Digital Radio and now on your Smart Speaker by saying play gb news. This is britains news. Channelin news. This is britains news. Channel in 1951, following the second world war, britain became a signatory of the Refugee Convention, which set out the rights of those seeking asylum and the responsibilities of the signatories granting asylum. Specifically stipulated its specifically stipulated that it applied to those being persecuted for reasons of race, religion or nationality , religion or nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Quote as a result of events occurring before the 1st of january 1951. In other words , it was particularly in response to the holocaust and the other horrors the world witnessed in the 1940s during the second world war. However in 1967, this stipulation was removed, which meant that it appued removed, which meant that it applied to all contexts. Was no longer confined to the events of the 1940s. But as the world has increasingly globalised , as the increasingly globalised, as the home secretary pointed out today , this revised 1967 definition, now applies to hundreds of millions of people , and the millions of people, and the agreement doesnt account for the fact that migrant smuggling has become a business of organised crime on a global scale. There is widespread belief that the main problem with our asylum system is the lack of safe and legal routes and if any, we had this infrastructure in place , we infrastructure in place, we would solve the channel boats crisis and more broadly, the refugee crisis is unfortunately under the definition we are held to by the convention when we could potentially expect to accept hundreds of millions of people. Now, of course, the majority of people that fit this definition wouldnt necessarily apply asylum in the uk. But apply for asylum in the uk. But theres no denying that if we provided avenues across the world for these applicants, we would see huge numbers trying to come here and to problems that flow from this to very practical problems. One, the domestic problems. One, the domestic infrastructure , housing, infrastructure, housing, hospitals and schools would crumple under the sheer weight of numbers. And two, the existing population wouldnt accept it. It would eject any government that tried to do this. And the numbers are truly vast. If we had such routes and estimated 40 Million People are in modern slavery, 89 Million People are displaced 27 Million People are displaced 27 Million People are displaced 27 Million People are considered refugees by the un. And in addition, the by the un. And in addition, the centre for policy studies estimates that when you add all of this up, those who fit the claim to the Refugee Convention definition, it would be about 780 Million People who could have a case for asylum in the uk and this is patently absurd and theres something fundamentally dishonest about being a signatory to an agreement that if it actually applied, you would not be able to deliver on. And there are 146 signatories to this convention on, but not one of them, including our own country, the United Kingdom can possibly be serious about its full implicate actions. The definition is so broad that it appues definition is so broad that it applies to hundreds of millions of people , but none of the of people, but none of the signatories could accept that such numbers should xl bully. We want our politicians and our treaties, to be honest and practical. Well, the only way we can do that is by rewriting the convention and the home secretary has done well to point out its current absurdity as always, i want to hear from you. Dont forget to let me know your thoughts. And you know the email by now. Mail morgue at gbnews. Com this evening. Im delighted by oliver delighted to be joined by oliver westmoreland , a senior westmoreland, a senior immigration lawyer at gsn immigration. Oliver, thank you immigration. Oliver, thank you for coming in. Dont you think that if you have an agreement that if you have an agreement thatis that if you have an agreement that is binding in International Law, it ought at least to be practical . Well , jacob, im a lawyer. Well, jacob, im a lawyer. I see things in a legal way. If you agree to an agreement, you agree . I think that that the narrative behind what you say is that the agreement doesnt necessarily work. And you imply that we could rewrite the agreement. We cant. That we could rewrite the agreement. We cant. Were one, agreement. We cant. Were one, as you said. I think accurately, one of 146 countries that signed the agreement. The home the agreement. The home secretary can make representations that the agreement doesnt work. Its not practical. But we cant rewrite rewrite the agreement. We can rewrite the agreement. We can make representations as to why its no longer practical. But as a lawyer , if the agreement is a lawyer, if the agreement is there, its there. And the home there, its there. And the home office has to operate the agreement as it stands. As it stands. As it stands. Okay. Excepting that, lets just hear moment what the just hear for a moment what the home had to say and home secretary had to say and then come back that point. Yes when the Refugee Convention was conferred was signed, it conferred protection on some 2 Million People in europe. According to people in europe. According to analysis by nick timothy and carl williams. For the centre for policy studies. It now confers the notional right to move to another country upon at least 780 Million People. It is therefore incumbent upon politician jones and thought leaders to ask whether the Refugee Convention and the way it has come to be interpreted through our courts is fit for our modern age or in need of reform. Reform. Well, the point you make a very fair point, that wed have to get 146, 145 other countries to get 146, 145 other countries to agree to change it. But normally agreements have a means of pulling out. Is there any means of resigning from the convention . Very easily. Jacob the Refugee Convention was not embedded in british law in any really strong way. The European Convention on human rights was it was embedded by the human rights act 1998, the Refugee Convention was not embedded in that strong way. It was embedded here and there in some rules and some rules tweaked. It could be easily tweaked, tweaked out because we have a dualist system that we have international agreements, but they dont have domestic effect until theyre passed by parliament. Correct. Correct. We can sign international agreements. Theyre not binding on us until our parliament has agreed them. Agreed to them. And is quite important and this is quite important because ministers can use the Royal Prerogative sign Royal Prerogative to sign agreements but agreements. Yes, but they obviously cant change domestic law. Correct. So are you basically saying that not that you disagree, that it ought to be changed, but that if we change we ought to do it in change it, we ought to do it in a legal and proper process . Youre absolutely right. I dont lawyer, i try and be dont as a lawyer, i try and be a technocrat. I try not to have an opinion. I know a lot of lawyers do. And they become very famous try and famous lefty lawyers. I try and be a technocrat. I try not to have opinions, but we have to follow law as it is. But follow the law as it is. But i can tell you, if it was politically acceptable, we could withdraw from refugee withdraw from the Refugee Convention very easily. Thats really quite so thats really quite important. And what mechanism would we use . Who would we . Wed have to tell the other signatories or wed just have to pass some legislation. Pass some domestic legislation. Particularly i dont think particularly i have anyone really that have to tell anyone really that probably want to know, but probably they want to know, but we can tweak few immigration probably they want to know, but we caand eak few immigration probably they want to know, but we caand things. Aw immigration probably they want to know, but we ca and things. Aw icouldation rules and things. We could easily escape from the Refugee Convention if it politically convention if it was politically acceptable, a political issue. Well, lets stick to the legal issue, because this is really interesting because often when talk about when people talk about International Law, they think that like the tablets that its like the tablets received by moses, that its unalterable , set in stone. Unalterable, set in stone. Governments cant do anything about it. But youre saying actually the government, if it has political will, can do has the political will, can do something about this in a very simple process. You know as well as i do, jake, if you sit in parliament and, know parliament and, you know parliament makes laws, legislation and, you know parliament makes l. There legislation and, you know parliament makes l. There is legislation and, you know parliament makes l. There is no legislation and, you know parliament makes l. There is no doubt legislation and, you know parliament makes l. There is no doubt thatjislation and, you know parliament makes l. There is no doubt that primary , there is no doubt that primary legislation the strongest legislation is the strongest form legislation form of legislation in this country. Can pass any country. Parliament can pass any law this would be a law it wants. This would be a very easy law , easy for very easy law, easy for parliament to pass a law that we are no longer bound by the Refugee Convention. This can be doneif Refugee Convention. This can be done if the political will exists, which might not, but it could. Exists, which might not, but it couand then we would. This would and then we would. This would still be compatible with our International Still be compatible with our internaticwe really have well, we dont really have them because we dont thats thats really interesting thats the really interesting point that most people thats the really interesting point know. Most people dont know. I think assume that the i think they assume that the 1951 gives us 1951 convention gives Us International obligations. 1951 convention gives us interbutonal obligations. 1951 convention gives us interbut youre obligations. 1951 convention gives us interbut youre saying. Igations. 1951 convention gives us interbut youre saying they ns. Yes, but youre saying they dont unless we wish to. A lot of people , your a lot of people, your greengrocer, the person you meet in the pub will think that it doesnt work like that. International is only what doesnt work like that. Inisnational is only what doesnt work like that. Inis. Ational is only what doesnt work like that. Inis. We nal is only what doesnt work like that. Inis. We are is only what doesnt work like that. Inis. We are not is only what doesnt work like that. Inis. We are not signed what doesnt work like that. Inis. We are not signed upiat doesnt work like that. Inis. We are not signed up to it is. We are not signed up to treaties weve signed really , if treaties weve signed really, if we wanted to escape from it , we we wanted to escape from it, we could escape from it very easily. There is no legal comeback, not in International Law national law anywhere law or national law or anywhere , and this fundamental. , and this is fundamental. So when the government says we cant do this because of International Law, not International Law, its not actually. They just need to actually true. They just need to do they can get on and do do it. They can get on and do it. Put an act before it. They could put an act before parliament bill, before parliament. Absolutely parliament bill, before par|backnt. Absolutely parliament bill, before par|back after solutely parliament bill, before par|back after the jtely parliament bill, before par|back after the party get back after the party conferences, European Convention on rights. On human rights. Different. Thats this is different. Thats been in british law by been enshrined in british law by the human act. We can the human rights act. We can make act parliament. Make a new act of parliament. Im saying we should. Im not saying we should. We can make of to parliament make a new act of to parliament replace and rescind the human rights it. We rights act and thats it. We escaped successfully, and that is with that is more difficult because convention because the Refugee Convention has a strange history. It was only incorporated in a funny way over several years and you have to go into case law to discover how its incorporated. Well , oliver, i how its incorporated. Well, oliver, i think thats absolutely brilliant and clear. I do my legal understanding standing of what we can actually do. Thank standing of what we can actually do. Thank you so much. Was the most helpful lawyer weve ever had my program in had on my program in immigration. Through. We cut through. We cut through. You. I hope youll thank you. I hope youll come on be so clear. Thank on again to be so clear. Thank you. Anyway dont let you. Anyway dont forget to let me know you think. Mel. Me know what you think. Mel. Margaret gbnews. Com. After the margaret gb news. Com. After the break, asking panel, break, ill be asking my panel, how the end of how are we facing the end of merritt . Merritt theocracy . Plus, British Government plus, can the British Government no trusted to protect no longer be trusted to protect its. Radio. Welcome back. Im still jacob welcome back. Im still Jacob Rees Mogg, and this is state of the nation. Youve been getting in touch with your thoughts, jill. Great speech from suella, but it wont stop the boats. Matt its important keep our matt its important we keep our borders for those need. Borders open for those in need. Change the ni the Un Convention would be barbaric. Ellie were a would be barbaric. Ellie were a compassionate country and we need to remain so. Yes, but we cant take 780 Million People. We have to be realistic. Chris custodiet ipsos