Were also going to be debating whether it is time to scrap or reform the nhs. What can we possibly do to save it. 7 let us know your thoughts this morning. Gbnews. Com your say is the portal , the website, the the portal, the website, the comment page that were enjoying so much. I will try and stay concentrated on the show today. First though, the very latest news with sophia wenzler. News with sophia wenzler. Thanks, bev. Good morning. Its 930. Im sophia wenzler in the gb newsroom. Your headlines the gb newsroom. Your headlines a change to family visa rules comes into force today as part of the governments plan to reduce immigration. Its part of the home secretarys promise to transform the uks immigration system, cut unfair levels of immigration and ensure those arriving here do not burden the taxpayer. The measure will see the minimum income for family visas rise by more than £10,000 to £29,000, an increase of more than 55 by early 2025. This will have increased two more times, rising to £38,700, a new poll suggests. Rishi sunak and other high profile tories could keep their seats because of voter id confusion in the next general election. A poll by general election. A poll by Campaign Group for best britain found 16 of people did not know that they would need a photo id to vote in the upcoming local and general elections. It means around 5 million could be turned away from polling stations. The away from polling stations. The government passed the legislation in 2022, with the new rules coming into force last year. New rules coming into force last year. Nearly new rules coming into force last year. Nearly half of new rules coming into force last year. Nearly half of workers year. Nearly half of workers have spent time looking at jobs outside the nhs , according to outside the nhs, according to new analysis. Researchers found around 47 have looked at employment outside the nhs, with 14 applying for non nhs jobs between march and june last yeah between march and june last year. Its understood stress, workload , Staff Shortages and workload, Staff Shortages and pay workload, Staff Shortages and pay are the top reasons for those leaving the nhs. The study team raised concerns over burnout after almost 1 in 2 workers reported feeling very tired or drained most days or every day. President joe biden every day. President joe biden has promised ironclad support for israel, as he warned iran not to launch a missile attack. This comes as fears grow that tehran could retaliate following a strike in syria that killed major senior iranians. Israel has denied responsibility for the attack. Mr biden said iran is threatening to launch a significant attack, and said the us will do all it can to protect israels security , and a once israels security, and a once a day migraine pill has been recommended on the nhs, with a charity claiming it could change the lives of thousands. The pill , sold under the brand name akua, has been given the green light for nhs use under the new final draft guidance. Its final draft guidance. Its understood around 170,000 sufferers will benefit from the treatment. Anyone who experiences at least four migraines a day and a month has tried at least three other methods, but found no relief. Methods, but found no relief. For the latest stories, sign up to gb news alerts by scanning the qr code on your screen, or go to gbnews. Com alerts. Now its. Its. A very good morning. Welcome to britains newsroom on gb news. Very busy lisa. Lisa was sitting down in my seat. Makes a nice change right overnight. Boris johnson has launched a furious attack on the Prime Minister. Called the Prime Minister. Hes called the sale of tobacco to future generations to stop the sale of tobacco absolutely nuts, he said. We need spend more on said. We need to spend more on defence. Lets have a listen to said. We need to spend more on defenjohnson have a listen to said. We need to spend more on defenjohnson speakingsten to said. We need to spend more on defenjohnson speaking in n to ottawa. The difference between us conservative and our our opponents is that every , every opponents is that every, every time, their instincts are always about control and expropriation and coercion and taking your money and spending it on your behalf and regulating your lives and we are on the whole in favour of freedom. When i look at some of the things that were, were, were doing now, i think that are being done in the name of conservatism. I think theyre absolutely, absolutely nuts. But, were banning but, you know, were banning cigars. And what is i mean, cigars. And what is i mean, maybe, maybe you all think thats a idea. I just thats a great idea. I just cant i cant see what what is the banning the the point of banning with a the Party Winston churchill party of Winston Churchill wants to , i mean, donnie, donnie, to ban, i mean, donnie, donnie, moi and break, as they say in quebec. You know, its just its just its just mad. Well, its quite refreshing to hear him talking about freedom and not banning things. Its, you know, i mean , good its, you know, i mean, good luck. Good, good. I quite agree with what youre saying because i dont understand this ban. I mean, smoke, mean, nobody wants to smoke, but the that theyre going to the idea that theyre going to ban anyone born after 2009 from buying legally , i buying cigarettes legally, i mean, unworkable. And most mean, its unworkable. And most houbobs mean, its unworkable. And most holibobs its nuts. Yeah, holibobs thinks its nuts. Yeah, but there is a convention that former Prime Ministers dont criticise the country when theyre. And hes theyre abroad. And hes personally criticising not just rishi sunak, whos out on the campaign trail today. Hes talking very freely there, wasnt he. But its classic boris, wasnt it classic boris. Wasnt it classic boris. Well find out where he was as well. Because the thing is, my suspicion about boris is hes always to his audience. Always talking to his audience. Right. He right. Hes saying what he thinks. Ottawa. Hes thinks. Hes in ottawa. Hes saying the person saying what he thinks the person in wants to hear, in the room wants to hear, whether audience of whether its an audience of people paying to him speak people paying to hear him speak or the time. Or his current wife at the time. So i have my suspicions that hes just talking, hes hes maybe just talking, hes talking the context. Conservatives , its canadian conservatives, its the canada strong and free network. And he was also with the former, tony abbott. Is there the former australian Prime Minister. Yeah. So, so he is feeling at home. Okay. So hes talking to a conservative crowd. Hes trying to talk the rhetoric of freedom and liberty and personal choice. But he is hes drawing the distinction between that and this current conservative government who seem to not be on board with those sorts of issues i yeah. And hes also talking about defence spending because as you know, in the budget, there was absolutely no increase in defence spending. Were arguably potentially some arguably facing potentially some people would say potentially even world war iii. But there is the biggest war in europe, in ukraine and no extra money for defence spending. And that is a source of great tension in the tory party. Well, another headache for the Prime Minister. Hes going to face cabinet revolt if he to face a cabinet revolt if he decides leave the european decides to leave the European Court rights. Court of human rights. These 12 cabinet are these 12 cabinet members are said oppose leaving, said to oppose leaving, including , james including jeremy hunt, James Cleverly and alex chalk. The justice three actually add to that the foreign secretary, david cameron, no david cameron, lord cameron, no way were lord cameron, allow this. So this debate heated up again, after calls from tory mps to quit the echr following that landmark ruling that governments have protect people have a duty to protect people from Climate Change. That was, in just the in sweden. We just saw the switzerland , switzerland. Thank switzerland, switzerland. Thank you. Just saw the footage you. We just saw the footage yesterday. Is with us, yesterday. Sam fales is with us, our favourite barrister and, sam, just explain to us, because this echr acronym is bandied around a lot, what would it mean for british people if we came out of the echr. 7 well, it would put us on a diplomatic par with russia. Basically the, the European Convention on human rights was created by that with the leadership of two conservative politicians, Winston Churchill and David Maxwell fyfe, whos one of my favourite lawyers of all time. And they saw the dangers of communism. They saw the dangers of what had happened in europe in the in the mid 20th century. And they said the only way to stop authorities from rising again is to put lines in place where you say to the state this far can you go but no further. 7 and to recognise that all individuals have a fundamental basic value and so and thats what the echr does. It sets down, sets down the, the fundamental points that protect the basic value of human beings and says to states, you , and says to states, you, whatever you do, you have to respect peoples fundamental personhood. So if we left okay, so were on a you say well be the same as russia. And i think belarus isnt in it as well. Indeed. Yeah, i think what is it, 44 countries are members, but its not the place of a European Court to meddle in what i would argue is domestic politics. Its argue is domestic politics. Its a huge overreach. Now, youve read, unlike me, the full 300 page ruling from the echr for my sins. And im glad that the one sins. And im glad that the one judge who dissented was the british one. Thats reassuring. But dont you think theyve gone too because whats next, too far because whats next, then . This switzerland hasnt gone enough in climate gone far enough in Climate Change policy. Oh, they need to spend more on defence spending. Is to be the next is that going to be the next thing . W weve w w weve got to be well, i think weve got to be really clear that court really clear that the court didnt go outside. What states have said the core of have already said the core of the was , was to the judgement was, was to recognise that states in the Paris Agreement have seen that publicly recognised that Climate Change an existential threat, change is an existential threat, and theyve made each state has made commitments to made public commitments to cutting, to cutting emissions. Right. And so the courts trying to summarise 300 pages of reasoning in three sentences goes like this. The court said states have recognised that this is an existential threat. It goesit is an existential threat. It goes it therefore goes to peoples fundamental humanity. States have been very clear about what they need to do to combat that. So if states dont live up to what theyve said they have to do, then that is a violation of our our fundamental rights. So its not saying the courts going to develop your policies for you. Its not saying were going to create a new right. Its recognising what states have already said and say and saying to them, you cant just be all talk. You have to be action. But hang on. Nato members have a commitment to spend 2. 5 of spending on of gdp on defence. Are they now going to say that all nato to make a ruling about countries in, in the echr within nato that theyve got to spend that 2. 5 . No, i dont think it would go the same. Its the same principle though, isnt it . Well , the protection from well, the protection from environmental harm has long been recognised as a fundamental right. This isnt new. This is theres sort of 30 years defence of our borders. Defence of the realm is a fundamental right. And indeed the European Court has protected and protected our right to defence. But it hasnt gone so far as to say you you have to comply with nato guidelines because nato is a im going to say regional. And let me let me just preface that by saying, in the broadest sense, nato is a regional agreement. The Paris Agreement is a global agreement. And so these are on slightly Different Levels because what human rights does, it doesnt look at us as brits or as americans or as french or venezuelans. It looks at us as people. So its very difficult people. So its very difficult to say, well, people in this western corner of the world are wont have one set of rights, and people elsewhere have a different set of rights. But with the Paris Agreement, thats something that applies to every person its on person in the world. So its on much firmer footing i think. So does it set this case this week . Does it set a bit of a dangerous precedent , though, in dangerous precedent, though, in terms of Courts Holding no nonelected . Well, the Paris Agreement, okay, that was elected governments coming together for that. But organisations that are determining policy being held to account by courts on the bidding of certain individuals. Well, this is what public law and Public International law does it. This isnt new though. Isnt it . Isnt this a new phenomenon and an Unaccountable Court . Yeah. No. Yeah. No. So this so we can go all the way back to the case of James Madison in, in the united states, which in, in, i think 1804. But i might have got that date wrong. So dont quote me. We wont hit the late, late 18th century, early 19th century, the a case where it was made very clear that individuals are entitled to hold governments to account for governments compliance with the law. And that has been the role of domestic public law courts. And its been the role since the middle of the 20th century of International Public law courts, governments with the law. It isnt law that we have to it isnt law that we have to become net zero quite in line with the 2030 agenda. Sustainable goals. It isnt law. Sustainable goals. It isnt law. Do you see what i mean . Well, its a its International Law because its the recognising the Paris Agreement and b it is law that we must protect the rights to a, a home and private life. And it was that what the court said and this, this isnt a new a new decision either. The this, this isnt a new a new decision either. The court has been saying things like this for years and years and years, just not in the Climate Change context. It said. If other people can impose Climate Change upon you, then thats a violation of your your right to a private life. Just in the same way that if people can impose some sort of pollution from their garden on onto you and kind of gas you or something, thats a violation of your private life, its the same thing. And so and no part of that court case would be whether Climate Change is specifically man made based on carbon emissions. Emissions. That is a given. That is a given. That is not that. The court said, look, thats not none of our business. Thats something for states to come up with. And states have come up with it. And the other really important the other point really important point switzerland point was switzerland was quite open with the court in saying, yes, we get we understand that we have not reached our the goals that we undertook under paris. We understand we havent even really got a plan in place to do that. And the court said , to do that. And the court said, if you had come to us and said, look, were meeting our goals. Heres the evidence, heres the plan. Bit of paper. This heres the evidence, heres the plan. Bit of paper. This is what plan. Bit of paper. This is what were going to do. Well, then wed be in a completely different set of circumstances. We, switzerland, tell the court lost. I tell them court to get lost. I tell them to get lost. Its the job of governments to be held to account over law, not unelected judges. 44 judges piously sitting in judgement. I hope the swiss government says were not doing it, or i hope not, because thats exactly what the role of judges is to do. Its a gift for people in this country who want to leave the European Court of human its human rights. They say its overstepping its overstepping the mark. Its overreaching its overreaching itself. Its the job governments decide. Job of governments to decide. Its the of a court to its not the job of a court to make a government do it. Its the can kick the the voters can kick the government switzerland government of switzerland out if they what theyre government of switzerland out if they response what theyre government of switzerland out if they response to. At theyre government of switzerland out if they response to. Globalre warming. Well, the point about public law is its for the government to decide the law. But once the government has decided the law, its for the government to stick to that law. You cant have sort of acting willy nilly once youve decided the law. And this is what the court has, has said it hasnt, hasnt gone in any particular, adventurous direction. Its literally said to the swiss government, this is what you agreed to. Now you need to stick to it. Fascinating like it or make any difference to Climate Change. Anyway, if switzerland net zero. Switzerland. Population what . Switzerland. Population of what . 1. 5 million or something. Massive polluter. Yeah, exactly. Massive polluter. Yeah, exactly. I mean, thats thats what makes the whole thing even more risible. Risible. Thank you, sam brilliantly explained. As always, sam fails there. Barrister. There. Our favourite barrister. Now. Half nhs now. Up next, nearly half of nhs workers have spent time looking for jobs outside of the nhs. But in some slightly positive news, waiting lists for routine hospital treatment in england has fallen for the fifth month in a