Restore Britain's two-part policy paper. A roadmap back to Britain.
Restores two-part policy paper. A roadmap back to Britain.
Restore Britain has recently released their report which details how the illegal immigration problem may be remedied. The intent of the paper is to fill in the detail of what a successful deportation agenda looks like. Essentially, as the paper suggests, this means the abolishing of the asylum system. The aim is to remove every illegal migrant in the UK via a mixed system approach, one that creates a hostile environment, encouraging voluntary returns and, if necessary, forced deportations. Most people viewing the current farce that is illegal immigration understand, the British legal system has been weaponized for political lawfare, particularly but not exclusively to aid unsustainable levels of immigration. This threat will be eliminated by advanced legislation listed and enabled under what Restore has aptly named the Great Clarification Act. The Act will give parliament the flexibility and power to supersede and set aside unpopular and destructive rulings by the Judiciary. As most of us are aware, the ECHR is employed as the barrier to gaining control of our borders. Meaning either burning this paper barrier or ignoring it. The ECHR is a single fragment of the broader architecture of external treaties and internal legislation that are the mechanics limiting national sovereignty over our borders. Restore Britain’s new paper is presented as the most comprehensive policy paper ever designed in aid of removing all those who have no right to be in the UK. The Report is quite a lengthy read and as any author on Substack knows this is generally something that limits how many will read those lengthier articles. Hence this abridged version, a 15 minute read condensing the full report, approximately 2-5hrs dependent on reading speed and purpose.
The purpose of this article is to provide further exposure and to generate interest by presenting tasters from the report, with the added hope that it illustrates a broader understanding of the task at hand and encourages patriots to read the full report. Additionally, to let citizens know you are not alone and there are many intelligent and highly motivated Brits working tirelessly to save our nation from its descent into a country of nowhere people in a nowhere land. Furthermore, that all is not lost and the opportunity for realignment is in your grasp.
Contemporarily British society is suffering from an advanced case, simultaneously, of institutional dysfunctionality, and society in general witnessing an unnecessary increase in social pathologies, much of which can be placed at the door of legal and illegal immigration. The most relevant aspects of the Report provide a general understanding of what must be achieved if Britain is to remain a functional, prosperous and harmonious society. This all hinges on whether an incoming government has the fortitude to embark on a program of radical change. For all patriots, this report gifts you the informational ammunition in which you can deploy to pressure any future government, in this case Reform UK. There is a valid concern among patriots that Reform UK may be too squeamish to implement the full host of measures that will set our nation on its journey back to Britain. Therefore, you as patriots must loan Reform UK your courage to aim high, with your support and equally, a relentless noncompromising pressure.
If the public mandate exists and Parliament chooses to act, the path is clear.
Rupert Lowe
Generalised description of strategy
Among other things e-visas will be employed as the only valid proof required for employment of non-British citizens, with strict audits on gig economy platforms where illegal workers thrive. Further suggestions entail an end to safe surgeries, status proof will be required, and upfront charges will be levied for non-emergency care. Currently those without immigration status, or proof of address, are able to register for primary care services in so called safe surgeries. This has the potential to put an end to health tourism. Bank accounts will be closed without valid status. Remittance taxes will be used to coerce uncooperative governments that refuse to take back their citizens. Thousands of new staff will be employed for immigration enforcement, including veterans and police. This will be funded by asset seizures, fines, and higher visa fees. Detention centers will be expanded in both number and capacity. There will be a retrospective voiding of asylum status for anyone who has entered our country illegally. Visa bans, aid cuts, and tariffs will be employed against countries who are uncooperative. The hope is to assemble a coalition of western nations, serving as a combined and robust diplomatic pressure on nations like Nigeria, India, and Pakistan. The cost of the 5-year plan will be in the tens of billions, with the above measures to be offset by taxes on remittances, reduced public spending and fixed penalty notices.
Legal obstacles
At Restore Britain, we note with alarm that our ability to defend our own borders against unarmed invasion confronts serious barriers in the form of domestic laws and international agreements. In Part I, we call for the removal of these obstacles as a prerequisite to restoring national sovereignty. We view such laws as mechanisms that can and must be changed in the interests of the British people. Our proposals assume a government with the political will and the majority in Parliament to pass major reforms needed to achieve these aims. Relieve the state from any duty to support asylum seekers, end to hotel supported accommodation. Time consuming immigration tribunals and the end of the equality Act (2010)
Restore Britain aims to repeal all references to rules and principles of UK legislation relating to the United Nations Refugee Convention of 1951, particularly sections of legislation that allow asylum claims after safe travel. Here Restore sets the stage for the wider context in that all claims will be rejected other than those of our closest neighbors, meaning there would be an embargo on anyone not from the European continent.
The longer-term aim is that those claiming asylum would be limited to applying for asylum on their continent of origin via international agreement. With the added benefit, this will create an incentive for leaders on each continent to maintain regional stability. So far so good. I think it’s not too presumptuous to suggest many would agree.
Legislation that will see specific sections repealed.
The weight of legislation allowing the courts to grant asylum is extensive, and wide ranging. It is almost as if successive legislatures have incrementally added sections to make the process fireproof in favour of illegal migrants and mass migration in general, legal, or illegal.
Here is a quote from the report by no other than Tony Blair, that demonstrates the duplicitous nature of the architects of our current woes, who had the cheek to offer this piece of wisdom in his autobiography, A journey: My Political Life: “The presumption was plainly false; most asylum claims were not genuine. Disproving them, however, was almost impossible...
The combination of the courts, with their liberal instinct; the European Convention on Human Rights, with its absolutist attitude to the prospect of returning someone to an unsafe community and the U.N. Convention of Refugees, with its context firmly that of 1930s Germany, meant that, in practice, once someone got into Britain and claimed asylum, it was the Devil’s own job to return them.” Yes, and our Tony was the devil’s apprentice as we all know. Lets rub the rights nose in immigration.
Below is the extensive list of home-grown legislation that must be repealed when the citadel of traitors sitting in our very own Westminster Parliament is routed.
Immigration and Asylum Act (1999) section 95, section 22, and regulation 5 to be repealed obliterating its obligatory effect.
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act (2002) repeal part 2 and 5: provision of asylum accommodation centers and housing is taken out and Immigration tribunals and respect of “Protection and Human Rights Claims, falls to the sword taken to the ECHR.
UK Borders Act (2007) repeal section 33 that overrides automatic deportation of foreign criminals.
Borders, Citizenship, and Immigration Act (2009) repeal section 5 that forces the Home secretary to consider the best interests of dependents of asylum claimants.
The Equality Act (2010) repeal in its entirety: the Equality Act mandates the active pursuit of egalitarian goals across the public sector, including as a matter of government policy. It does so by prohibiting both “direct” and “indirect” discrimination against people with so-called “protected characteristics.” To be replaced with a simple non-discrimination duty as proposed by the New Culture Forum.
Illegal Migration Act (2023) repeal section 12. With the suggestion to overturn all four Hardial Singh principles. These principles create an obstacle to mass deportations. Meaning repeal of section 3a 3b, and 4.
The above is the archipelago of home-grown legislation that must be repealed if we are to put an end to mass migration. The report goes on to argue that international obligations, for example, those in the UN Refugee Convention, only apply to the extent they are written into domestic law.
Quote: though not incorporated wholesale into our domestic law, the United Nations Refugee Convention (UNRC) of 1951 finds its essential principles reflected in all sorts of legislation from the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act (1993) to the Nationality and Borders Act (2022). It is through our courts, interpreting and applying these principles, that the UNRC assumes legal force within Britain. Our continued adherence to it lies at the foundation of our current asylum system. Yet with each passing day, the evidence mounts that this no longer serves the interests of the nation, nor the demands of the time.
This article is now 5 minutes out from its threshold where I believe most readers will switch off, so in this knowledge, I leave a few snapshots and hooks below taken from the report.
ECHR
With the will and majority in parliament there will be a withdrawal from ECHR and the HRA will be repealed. Albeit from the tone in the report, Restore anticipates some tension forming around the Belfast agreement but nothing unassailable. Small fragments of case law from the ECHR will be retained to ensure peace in Ireland. There may be diplomatic issues but in terms of legal issues, less so. The details of how this may be approached are listed in section IV of the Report, p.33. The report suggests in the event any precedent is abused, parliament will hold the ace card via the Clarification Act and can smite down any aberrant judicial rulings by majority vote. Extract below:
This legal reasoning forms the basis for their conclusion: “UK withdrawal from the ECHR would not constitute a breach of the Belfast Agreement.”51. The second paper was co-authored by the Prosperity Institute by Suella Braverman and Guy Dampier. They equally maintain, for much the same reason, that the Belfast Agreement (BA) “need not pose an obstacle to ECHR withdrawal.”52 Now, it may not breach the BA, but this is no guarantee that any future decision to withdraw from the ECHR and/or repeal the HRA will not give rise to non-legal problems in need of careful handling. Political difficulties and legal impossibilities are not the same thing. What we have on our hands here is an example of the former, not the latter.
Windsor Framework
The Windsor framework and EU relations are mentioned, although from Restores’ point of view the issues will be minor, arguing there is always the possibility to make adjustments that are more up to date. Judicial activism will be neutered by the Clarification Act. With additional reforms regarding criteria of judicial review and powers for removal of biased judges. The above is essential for the logistics of the next phase of mass deportations.
“While the substance of the rights in existence before withdrawal [from the EU] and underpinned by EU law must be retained in Northern Ireland, there is no obligation to retain specific EU measures themselves, but article 2 [of the Windsor Framework] obliges the UK to achieve the functionally equivalent result: it has some discretion (within limits) over how to achieve that result.
Paralysing any system of effective border enforcement (p.27 section II of Report).
In short, whereas the influence of the UNRC forces us to treat bogus asylum claims seriously, the ECHR and the HRA prevent us in various ways from removing illegals who try their luck. Much of what the ECHR does, as Cummings says, takes the form of an unquantifiable chilling effect. Given the ever-present threat of judicial challenge, existing human rights law does not only shoot down government decisions in mid-air but dissuades many acts of political daring before they can even get off the ground.
ECHR-Related Obstacles
Extract: As Dominic Cummings reports of his time in government, the obstacles to border control are not operational, but legal: “I went through the boats in great detail in 2020 with both a) the military and b) the best lawyers inside and outside government and the conclusion was absolutely clear: operationally stopping the boats is very simple and could be done in days but Cabinet Office (CO) legal advice endorsed by external experts is that the PM cannot do this simple thing lawfully because the courts will stop him, by employing the HRA/ECHR. (In simple terms if the PM tried to order the Navy to stop the boats in a serious way, the courts would state that the PM’s orders are unlawful under the HRA therefore the Navy cannot execute them and the Cabinet Secretary would tell the PM that he cannot insist on his orders being obeyed as, in extremis, both the PM and officers could be arrested for contempt. The core operational and political problem of ‘stop the boats’ could be solved by simple primary legislation explicitly whacking the HRA, though the broader issue of the Strasbourg court and other international law angles requires deeper action. I won’t go into the details of this here.)” p.26
Hence, both ECHR and HRA must go.
UK-EU TCA
“To point out that Brussels may exercise this freedom in shock at a future British withdrawal from the ECHR and/or repeal of the HRA is no more alarming than to point out that they may do so for any other reason.” p.45
United Nations Refugee Convention (UNRC)
Suella Braverman was the first mainstream politician in Britain to draw attention to the disruptive effects of UNRC-based law as it operates today. In a speech to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in 2023, she argued that it is “incumbent upon politicians 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.” We take the view that it is in need of serious reform, if not radical overhaul.
As we hinted in parts of Section I, every binding reference to the UNRC or its principles that lawyers are able to identify in our domestic law – along with similar references to other relevant ‘non-refoulement’ treaties such as the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the UN Convention Against Torture, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – should be repealed.
Reform UK have suggested that the UNRC should be disapplied in Britain’s domestic law for a period of five years. However, it would be more in Britain’s interest, as we (Restore Britain) suggest, to repeal every trace of the UNRC in our law altogether.
After all, we are not at the beginning but at least halfway through a reckless demographic experiment.
Living instrument
Lord Jonathan Sumption argues that this permission structure has conferred upon the ECtHR a more or less unbridled “power to review the whole range of [Britain’s] domestic law.”34 Their adventurous decisions have been made less in line with evolving circumstances, such as the development of new technologies, and more in line with evolving values. This may sound harmless, but in a free and self-governing society any changes in our values will tend to find their way into law over time regardless of any pronouncement handed down by judges. The problem with the living instrument doctrine is that it empowers a small judicial oligarchy to make such decisions for us.
As Finnis writes elsewhere,
“The ‘living instrument’ method ensures that much of the time, the Court is instead interpreting not text or agreement, but ‘attitudes’, that is, opinions (not least prejudices and ideologies, ‘memes’ and ‘tropes’) that have emerged since the Convention was adopted and won favour among transnational elites and a majority of the Court.”35 p.28
So far as is possible, judges should be prohibited from such methods of interpretation by a new law – much along the lines of a British Sovereignty Act, defended in detail by Douglas Carswell – ordering all judges to form their conclusions solely on the basis of common law precedent and parliamentary statutes, the latter of which under our suggestion would of course include some small remaining sliver of ECHR case law. P. 40
Judicial oligarchy is no better for bossing us around at home than from abroad. Parliament must reassert its sovereignty.
HRA
HRA-based judicial decisions at home on a discerning basis under our Great Clarification Act (again, see Section VI). To shirk our duties under a self-binding treaty such as the ECHR may grate against the natural sense of fair play in the British character, but it would be justified and no doubt popular if Strasbourg continues to get in the way of mass deportations. If a future government has full confidence in its ability to deal with the Northern Ireland- and EU-related fallout, ideally along the lines we suggest in Section IV and Section V, they should leave the ECHR and repeal the HRA. Alongside such actions, an information war must be waged. Cummings has recently suggested as much, calling for classified information about the ways in which our human rights legislation is abused even by terrorists to be made public: “Terrorists literally being hunted from cave to cave in Afghanistan by JSOC (US classified special forces) have used satellite phones to procure London barristers to bring legal cases against the MoD [Ministry of Defence] for ‘human rights’ abuses and won secret payouts of millions while on the run. Such grotesque cases are classified by the Cabinet Office to stop MPs knowing what the ECHR actually does, and close to zero MPs are informed of such lunatic dynamics. (Hence my advice to Sunak to declassify the ECHR/HRA effects on security, take them out of red STRAP files and publish them.)”43 p.32
Judicial Conduct and Tenure Act
The purpose of Carswell’s Judicial Conduct and Tenure Act would give full power to the Lord Chancellor to relieve senior judges of their office if they are thought to have displayed a persistent record of putting their own personal prejudices before the clear meaning of legal texts. Britain’s legal system is fast falling into discredit among an otherwise instinctively law-loving British people. By forcing judges to keep their focus on statute, this reform would help to restore faith in our judiciary.p.50
Further aspects discussed in more detail are Right to work (RtW, housing HMOs (RtR), healthcare-GP surgeries-Safe surgeries (no proof of address required) banking and finance (legal residency)
Final thoughts
Remember that feeling, that sense of excitement, you had as a child when your granny opened her biscuit tin, well that’s the feeling I had on reading this report and writing this article. I was spoiled for choice and limited by selection. To say the above touched the surface of the report would be gross insult to the authors. However, it provides a flavour of the contents. A great deal of work has been carried out in anticipation of a British government (read real) in waiting. One that will lead us back to Britain, where we reclaim our democracy, our national sovereignty, and self-rule. It is understandable that on viewing the contents there will be some misgivings due to the radical nature of the reforms. This must be equalled by the knowledge that all of the obstacles that serve our current dilemma were put in place by those whose vision for the future is not with Britain but with IGOs and supranational entities, aligned and enforced by a post national ideology and economic blackmail. These are the agents who have strangled our democracy, deformed liberalism, diluted national sovereignty and diminished British identity at every opportunity. Keeping this in mind, any squeamishness to radical reform can be put aside, and rather be viewed as a righteous mission. One that places British interests at the heart of the nation.
Charles Chevalier- Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Link to the Full report provided below for those who are not faint of heart.
For the more intrepid reader, prerequisites and sound arguments for Restores propositions are provided in the full report relating to potential courses of action for not only interested parties as in the British public at large but a future government.
Mass Deportations: Legitimacy, Legality, and Logistics>