Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Home Office and UK government policy concerning asylum seekers/Rwanda deportations

Anyone have any theories on why Sunak didn't wait for this announcement and sack her afterwards for this colossal fuck up and waste of money?
 
Anyone have any theories on why Sunak didn't wait for this announcement and sack her afterwards for this colossal fuck up and waste of money?

Presumably she was planning to resign either on Monday or today and he wanted to stop her doing hat?
 
Tricky. Which sackable offence do you choose as your reason to sack someone? From a tory pov, laying into the police is probably a worse offence than being incompetent in getting nasty legislation through ('Ah well, at least she tried. Pesky judges'). 🤔

Be interesting to hear if they dare criticise the Supreme Court over a unanimous judgement. No nut job dissenting opinion to fall back on.
 
Tricky. Which sackable offence do you choose as your reason to sack someone? From a tory pov, laying into the police is probably a worse offence than being incompetent in getting nasty legislation through ('Ah well, at least she tried. Pesky judges'). 🤔

Be interesting to hear if they dare criticise the Supreme Court over a unanimous judgement. No nut job dissenting opinion to fall back on.

Did you not see what Cameron and May did to the old bill? Party of law and order my arse…
 
Looks like they've tabled this amendment to push the policy through regardless of the Courts decision. Today is going to be hot for both sides if the House.


My MP is on that list.

Rare day at home on a Wednesday so I’ll look forward to watching PMQs
 
Looks like they've tabled this amendment to push the policy through regardless of the Courts decision. Today is going to be hot for both sides if the House.




If each of those people guarantee to cover the costs of the claims made by those they seek to illegally deport I see no reason why we can't give John Redwood the keys to an old 747 and tell him to get on with it.
 
Anyone have any theories on why Sunak didn't wait for this announcement and sack her afterwards for this colossal fuck up and waste of money?

Everyone knows this Rwanda shit was Braverman's baby. This latest development might knock some of the wind out her incipient swivel-eyed rebellion. Probably not though. The court system, laws etc are just more woke liberal crap standing in the way of the obvious common sense plan to ship thousands of people to Africa against their will at exorbitant cost.
 
Everyone knows this Rwanda shit was Braverman's baby. This latest development might knock some of the wind out her incipient swivel-eyed rebellion. Probably not though. The court system, laws etc are just more woke liberal crap standing in the way of the obvious common sense plan to ship thousands of people to Africa against their will at exorbitant cost.
Patel’s, actually. (Not that it really matters)
 
Just watched and read the summary of the judgment, it's really really bad for the government. Unanimous decision against them by a pretty conservative Supreme Court deciding a very narrow legal issue (whether there are substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers would face a real risk of ill-treatment by reason of Rwanda deporting them to the countries they fled from).

The summary judgment is basically 'on the one hand Suella says the Rwandan government made a pinky promise they won't deport people in such instances, on the other hand there's just mountains of evidence that they will':

First, Rwanda has a poor human rights record. In 2021, the UK government criticised Rwanda for “extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances and torture”. UK government officials have also raised concerns about constraints on media and political freedom

Secondly, UNHCR’s evidence is that there are serious and systematic defects in Rwanda’s procedures and institutions for processing asylum claims. In summary, these include:

(i) concerns about the asylum process itself, such as the lack of legal representation, the risk that judges and lawyers will not act independently of the government in politically sensitive cases, and a completely untested right of appeal to the High Court,

(ii) the surprisingly high rate of rejection of asylum claims from certain countries in known conflict zones from which asylum seekers removed from the UK may well emanate,

(iii) Rwanda’s practice of refoulement, which has continued since the MEDP was concluded, and

(iv) the apparent inadequacy of the Rwandan government’s understanding of the requirements of the Refugee Convention

Thirdly, Rwanda has recently failed to comply with an explicit undertaking to comply with the non-refoulement principle given to Israel in an agreement for the removal of asylum seekers from Israel to Rwanda which operated between 2013 and 2018.


Suella has been totally rekked.

 
They're frothing about the ECHR, but the judge said that even without that the policy fails under our legal obligations to:

The United Nations (UN) Refugee Convention
The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,


Other than that we're good to go :thumbs:
 
They're frothing about the ECHR, but the judge said that even without that the policy fails under our legal obligations to:

The United Nations (UN) Refugee Convention
The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,


Other than that we're good to go :thumbs:
and various parts of UK law that weren't simply incorporating EU policy. Oops.
 
The Rwanda Plan is Deader than Maggie T (may she burn in hell) . Yeah, Sevenbins can change the law and re-negotiate the treaty to make it lawful but by the time the law changes make it through Parliament and survive the inevitable trip through the courts, Sevenbins will have gone back to his mansion to count his shekels and many of the rest of them will be finding out first hand how unforgiving the DWP is.
I don't know if Starmer objects in principle to the plan (not sure Starmer knows if he objects or not) but whatever else he is, he's not stupid. He is not going to waste time, money or political capital in trying to resurrect something do dumb.
All this now is just posturing for the base.
They're frothing about the ECHR, but the judge said that even without that the policy fails under our legal obligations to:

The United Nations (UN) Refugee Convention
The UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
The UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,


Other than that we're good to go :thumbs:
The ECHR is the really important one with proper legal clout but it doesn't matter. The UK isn't withdrawing from the ECHR just to placate the Tory backbenchers and to chuck out a probably very small number of immigrants.
The row it will cause with the EU (member or not) is just not worth it.
 
Back
Top Bottom