Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

What are Ministers for? – politicalbetting.com

124

Comments

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,067
    DavidL said:

    Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.

    A measured response might be a mix of processing claims more quickly, and reducing the £4bn or so we're spending on virtual incarceration of applicants, by allowing them some way of usefully participating in the economy, instead of condemning them to years of enforced idleness.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,582
    Andy_JS said:

    New post office witness has just started giving evidence. "Warwick Tatford, external counsel instructed by the PO". Jason Beer KC asking the questions.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kqbM0VlcnU

    Jason Beer is very good.

    He can be Sir Jason Beer KC, when the PO management end up in prison.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,317

    Pretty dire for the Tories. But Rwanda was always a ridiculously unworkable policy

    The Tories could not run a bath, serial duffers. How did these clowns ever become millionaires, certainly not due to their own skills and intelligence for sure.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275
    I have huge respect for the UK Supreme Court and we should be so thankful that it remains free of political interference.

  • The ludicrousness is what's most offensive.

    On looking at the Supreme Court's reasoning, I think it would have decided the case differently if asylum cases were being processed in Rwanda rather than being transferred to Rwanda. Still ludicrous, but it would have been a victory.


    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1724738099559669946
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,317

    Hurrah for an independent judiciary.

    This is why the UK is a great place for international business.

    They know our judiciary will put the government back in their box when appropriate.

    Bunch of doddery , half dited old private school idiots who never got over the fagging. No more idea of real life than a brick.
  • Barnesian said:

    Leon said:

    I sense this is probably true

    "Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.

    I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.

    The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.

    The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.

    They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.

    Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.

    You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.

    Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."

    https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/1724560856153825640?s=20

    The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again

    And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world

    And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?
    If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.

    In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
    Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:




    Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?

    International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are:
    - Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza?
    - If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate?
    - If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?

    FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.

    We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.

    There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
    I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.

    Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.

    The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
    it's worth noting that the use of human shields is itself a war crime, whether foreign hostages (also a war crime other than the soldiers, though rules still apply on how and where they're held), or domestic civilians.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,073
    If the Government is looking for a workaround, the trick is to ensure that they are intercepted by Royal Navy ships before they hit UK dry land/shore. That way they never fall under UK jurisdiction and the SC writ doesn't hold sway to ships at sea.

    I also need to point out that the US are decommissioning thirty-odd nearly-new Littoral Command Ships because they don't have the range for long-range combat

    A combination of helicopters and 30-odd LCSs should be more that enough to set up a 24-hr conveyor from UK to Rwanda/wherever, with intercept/processing/first-aid/disembarkation without ever falling under SC jurisdiction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275

    The ludicrousness is what's most offensive.

    On looking at the Supreme Court's reasoning, I think it would have decided the case differently if asylum cases were being processed in Rwanda rather than being transferred to Rwanda. Still ludicrous, but it would have been a victory.


    https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1724738099559669946

    They are being processed there so I don’t understand his reasoning . The whole point was the danger that the Rwandan authorities wouldn’t process them properly and deport genuine refugees .
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,317
    TimS said:

    Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?

    - Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive
    - some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks
    - Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner
    - Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen
    - Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen
    - cross fingers and hope for the best?

    Have lots of barges in the middle of the channel, all who arrive get shipped there to be processed.
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    Barnesian said:

    Leon said:

    I sense this is probably true

    "Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.

    I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.

    The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.

    The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.

    They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.

    Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.

    You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.

    Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."

    https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/1724560856153825640?s=20

    The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again

    And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world

    And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?
    If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.

    In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
    Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:




    Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?

    International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are:
    - Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza?
    - If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate?
    - If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?

    FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.

    We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.

    There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
    I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.

    Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.

    The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
    All of that is pretty much what Israel is currently doing already. The bombing has mostly stopped, which is why the death toll is climbing much more slowly than it has been, and the primary focus of the ground troops has been on the tunnels for a couple of weeks now.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,813
    edited November 2023
    TimS said:

    Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?

    - Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive
    - some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks
    - Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner
    - Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen
    - Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen
    - cross fingers and hope for the best?

    The best fix is a cross border agreement on refugee settlement, processing and distribution, on a pan-European level (and ideally bringing in border countries like Turkey.

    If only there was an organisation that we could be a member of that might give us some clout to try and get heads together on this topic?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    Nigelb said:

    Hurrah for an independent judiciary.

    This is why the UK is a great place for international business.

    They know our judiciary will put the government back in their box when appropriate.

    She can always run for the leadership on a platform of abolishing them ?

    But as far as mainstream politics is concerned, she's a busted flush.
    She really isn’t. She’s cleverly detached herself from this - just in time. And she’s detached herself from a guaranteed lost election. She can blame everyone but herself

    She is now the standard bearer of the right and any candidate will need her on board - if she doesn’t win herself

    DUH
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,581

    Barnesian said:

    Leon said:

    I sense this is probably true

    "Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.

    I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.

    The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.

    The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.

    They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.

    Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.

    You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.

    Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."

    https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/1724560856153825640?s=20

    The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again

    And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world

    And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?
    If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.

    In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
    Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:




    Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?

    International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are:
    - Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza?
    - If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate?
    - If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?

    FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.

    We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.

    There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
    I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.

    Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.

    The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
    it's worth noting that the use of human shields is itself a war crime, whether foreign hostages (also a war crime other than the soldiers, though rules still apply on how and where they're held), or domestic civilians.
    There is no doubt that Hamas are guilty of war crimes.

    The question for Israel is how best to neutralise Hamas both legally and morally. Bombing is not the best way. It might be legal but it's not moral and for Israel it risks losing international support.

    But they need to keep fighting Hamas and fix the tunnels. That's where Hamas is, and there aren't many civilians in the tunnels.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,317
    TimS said:

    malcolmg said:

    Pulpstar said:

    A small drop in interest rates will save me thousands of pounds. That’s all I really care about. My fixed rate expiry in February 2024 beckons…

    I've just signed on for a 2 year fix from 1st February. An extra £230 a month on the mortgage. Thanks Rishi!
    What's the o/s, £150k or so ?

    Mid '25 remortgage for me, from 1.49% with about 182k remaining. Hopefully Iran and the USA can keep their missiles from each other in the middle east till then...
    ouch , that will be sore , be close to 4% jump unless a miracle happens so north of 400 a month.
    Mine’s in 3 tranches after 2 remortgages. The first went a few months ago and jumped to about 5.5% but that was thankfully the smallest of the 3 chunks. The big ones come up in 2025 by which time I also hope rates are well on the way down.
    One of mine , BTL, up January and just got new deal , big jump in rate at 6% but luckily not huge so only £100 a month extra.
    By luck I took 10 years on my main one , was a bit higher at time at 2.4% but turned out to be great decision.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    Leon said:

    Suella is vindicated again. She says in her letter "we could easily lose this case"

    You think it coincidence that she angled to get fired before this judgment?

    Imagine her having to face the cameras as Home Secretary today...
    That's not so hard to do. Imagine her sacking rebuttal letter on steroids.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,067
    edited November 2023
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Hurrah for an independent judiciary.

    This is why the UK is a great place for international business.

    They know our judiciary will put the government back in their box when appropriate.

    She can always run for the leadership on a platform of abolishing them ?

    But as far as mainstream politics is concerned, she's a busted flush.
    She really isn’t. She’s cleverly detached herself from this - just in time. And she’s detached herself from a guaranteed lost election. She can blame everyone but herself

    She is now the standard bearer of the right and any candidate will need her on board - if she doesn’t win herself

    DUH
    "Cleverly detached herself..."

    DUH indeed.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,523
    Barnesian said:

    TimS said:

    Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?

    - Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive
    - some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks
    - Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner
    - Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen
    - Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen
    - cross fingers and hope for the best?

    Make it easier to enter UK legitimately so no need for boats and then process vey quickly so no need for hotels. Identify barriers to fast processing and remove them. It's not rocket science.
    This is in fact Labour policy (I heard Stephen Kinnock on it in very similar terms).
  • Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Leon said:

    I sense this is probably true

    "Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.

    I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.

    The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.

    The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.

    They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.

    Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.

    You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.

    Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."

    https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/1724560856153825640?s=20

    The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again

    And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world

    And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?
    If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.

    In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
    Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:




    Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?

    International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are:
    - Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza?
    - If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate?
    - If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?

    FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.

    We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.

    There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
    I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.

    Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.

    The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
    it's worth noting that the use of human shields is itself a war crime, whether foreign hostages (also a war crime other than the soldiers, though rules still apply on how and where they're held), or domestic civilians.
    There is no doubt that Hamas are guilty of war crimes.

    The question for Israel is how best to neutralise Hamas both legally and morally. Bombing is not the best way. It might be legal but it's not moral and for Israel it risks losing international support.

    But they need to keep fighting Hamas and fix the tunnels. That's where Hamas is, and there aren't many civilians in the tunnels.
    That would be bloody. Block all the exits except one and insert some form of fuel-air mix in the remaining one.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    This hotel is astounding. Literally in the middle of the deep deep jungle


    Ah. My gin and tonic has arrived




  • Scott_xP said:

    @aljwhite

    Supreme Court pres currently making clear it's not *just* the ECHR that applies to this: there are other treaties, including the UN refugee convention, which need to be respected under intl' law

    Oh, what a tangled web we've weaved.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,581
    Endillion said:

    Barnesian said:

    Leon said:

    I sense this is probably true

    "Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.

    I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.

    The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.

    The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.

    They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.

    Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.

    You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.

    Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."

    https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/1724560856153825640?s=20

    The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again

    And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world

    And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?
    If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.

    In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
    Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:




    Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?

    International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are:
    - Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza?
    - If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate?
    - If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?

    FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.

    We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.

    There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
    I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.

    Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.

    The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
    All of that is pretty much what Israel is currently doing already. The bombing has mostly stopped, which is why the death toll is climbing much more slowly than it has been, and the primary focus of the ground troops has been on the tunnels for a couple of weeks now.
    That makes sense. So Israel should declare an end to the bombing and adhere to it. That would take the heat out of the calls for a ceasefire.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.

    A measured response might be a mix of processing claims more quickly, and reducing the £4bn or so we're spending on virtual incarceration of applicants, by allowing them some way of usefully participating in the economy, instead of condemning them to years of enforced idleness.
    Indeed it might. But the "virtual incarceration" is a part of the hostile environment introduced by Mrs May. The concern is that otherwise you increase the risk of them establishing family life here and making an article 6 claim on that basis. The priority has always been to properly resource both assessments and implementation of the decisions. So many reported cases involve asylum seekers who have been in this country for a decade or more living in limbo. It is not only cruel (and it is), it is also an astonishing waste of public money.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,523
    DavidL said:

    So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.

    As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.

    Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.
    It's likely that the 80% success rate is linked to people being willing to risk the boats - if you're pretty sure you'll be accepted if only the crossing risk can be managed, the incentive is huge. Allowing legal applications from abroad without the Hunger Games element of having to cross by boat doesn't mean that we'll suddenly have 80% of all possible claims approved.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677

    Leon said:

    Suella is vindicated again. She says in her letter "we could easily lose this case"

    You think it coincidence that she angled to get fired before this judgment?

    Imagine her having to face the cameras as Home Secretary today...
    She's certainly better at politics than sunak.xlsx
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812

    Hurrah for an independent judiciary.

    This is why the UK is a great place for international business.

    They know our judiciary will put the government back in their box when appropriate.

    Yes - I think I’m most proud of this fact. At least one aspect of our system works
    The rule of law is almost certainly the largest single difference between the UK (and most other western countries) and the likes of Argentina as described by @Alanbrooke in his recent thread header. The economic benefits of such judicial independence are massively underrated.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,624

    Scott_xP said:

    @aljwhite

    Supreme Court pres currently making clear it's not *just* the ECHR that applies to this: there are other treaties, including the UN refugee convention, which need to be respected under intl' law

    Oh, what a tangled web we've weaved.
    The whole edifice of post-WW2 treaties needs to go.
  • DavidL said:

    Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.

    A response isn't enough.

    How do we control our borders?

    The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.

    That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,145
    Looking at the Verdict on 'asylum seekers to Rwanda' that the policy is unlawful, what's Short-Term Rishi going to do now?

    I think I saw him declare this morning that he will carry on regardless.

    That's going to end well.

    How much more Jenga can he play before the whole lot collapses?
  • Nigelb said:

    DavidL said:

    Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.

    A measured response might be a mix of processing claims more quickly, and reducing the £4bn or so we're spending on virtual incarceration of applicants, by allowing them some way of usefully participating in the economy, instead of condemning them to years of enforced idleness.
    Apparently after 12 months asylum seekers can get work permits for certain shortage jobs.

    One option would be to triage asylum seekers. Put everyone with papers from a country likely to qualify into a light touch group. And yes, invest in processing people quicker.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,073

    TimS said:

    Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?

    - Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive
    - some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks
    - Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner
    - Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen
    - Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen
    - cross fingers and hope for the best?

    The best fix is a cross border agreement on refugee settlement, processing and distribution, on a pan-European level (and ideally bringing in border countries like Turkey.

    If only there was an organisation that we could be a member of that might give us some clout to try and get heads together on this topic?
    We are in the Council of Europe, NATO and the European Political Community. The EU is set up to coordinate between member states and create common positions. It is not good at handling externalities or outside context problems like the population of Africa and MENA deciding to move north for a bit. There are many cases for being in the EU, but arguably this is not one of them.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990

    @Smyth_Chris

    Court suggests that even if UK were to pull out of *all* international treaties the scheme may still be illegal. Suggests non-refoulment is "a principle of customary international law" binding regardless of treaties
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812

    DavidL said:

    So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.

    As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.

    Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.
    It's likely that the 80% success rate is linked to people being willing to risk the boats - if you're pretty sure you'll be accepted if only the crossing risk can be managed, the incentive is huge. Allowing legal applications from abroad without the Hunger Games element of having to cross by boat doesn't mean that we'll suddenly have 80% of all possible claims approved.
    No but it would be high Nick which is why I have said several times that the UN Convention is no longer fit for purpose in a much more mobile world. There are literally hundreds of millions living in failed or oppressive states that would qualify for asylum in the UK or any other Convention country. We simply cannot take them all which is why we try so hard to stop them coming in the first place.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275
    We should remember that Jenrick thinks an alternative plan is sending asylum seekers to Iraq . Braverman might be gone but the odious Jenrick remains .
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,073
    malcolmg said:

    TimS said:

    Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?

    - Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive
    - some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks
    - Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner
    - Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen
    - Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen
    - cross fingers and hope for the best?

    Have lots of barges in the middle of the channel, all who arrive get shipped there to be processed.
    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4605701/#Comment_4605701
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    Leave the ECHR, tell Ireland that if they complain the RAF won’t protect them any more, ship these poor people out to Rwanda. Do it with the Danes and Germans so it confuses the idiot Remainers. Sorted. No more boats and no more deaths in the Med or the Channel - win win

    In the end the answer will have to be something like this - it’s the only thing that has ever worked

    Or a government gets really honest and says to the. British people - there is nothing we can do. Millions will come. That’s it

    Good luck with that

    I imagine there are some Tories who will be rather relieved to hand this over to Starmer. He will face the exact same intractable issues
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,032
    edited November 2023
    This ruling is the perfect opportunity for Sunak and Cleverly to chart an entirely new course on illegal immigration and leave Braverman where she belongs as a toxic unpleasant individual who failed in her job and when sacked produced a letter full of bile and inferred blackmail that the only question is why if she felt this way had she not resigned before

    Sunak to speak on Rwanda at 4.45

    And I apparently am now under 3 specialists addressing my health issues all of whom I have confidence in and that hopefully they can be addressed medically rather than surgically
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    MASSIVE BATS EVERYWHERE
  • malcolmg said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    Another excellent header.

    The management may be second rate (is that too kind?), but they have first rate egos, and draw first rate salaries.

    I think the Post Office had/have the same problem as Suella Braverman.

    They are both arrogant and ignorant, that's a toxic mix.
    Could also be said of the DfE, DfT, OFQUAL, OFSTED, the Treasury, the DoH, Oxford University's History faculty, the people running the MA in public policy at Birkbeck...

    It's a long list of people involved in running our country and not in a good way.
    I am coming to the conclusion the biggest problem in this country is people vastly overestimate their abilities, particularly those in senior positions.
    That's because they mostly went to private schools. The rot starts there.
    This is just blind prejudice.

    You could wipe out every private school in the country (and bear in mind there are many different types, specialist, international, progressive, religious and traditional) and it wouldn't change this one jot.
    Rubbish, we have a bunch of chinless duffers running the show, there due to money and old boy network rather than talent.
    It's remarkable that so many people still believe this.

    It's absolute nonsense.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,073
    Leon said:

    MASSIVE BATS EVERYWHERE

    STOP TAKING SO MANY DRUGS
  • Leon said:

    MASSIVE BATS EVERYWHERE

    It's a good job you ascribe to the lab leak theory, or you'd be shitting yourself at this point. Diseased little creatures.

    Are you going to SR and PP on this trip? I'm going in Feb so looking for some tips, have booked flights (to BKK) but no accommodation or transfers yet.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277
    Scott_xP said:


    @Smyth_Chris

    Court suggests that even if UK were to pull out of *all* international treaties the scheme may still be illegal. Suggests non-refoulment is "a principle of customary international law" binding regardless of treaties

    So we literally have no control of our borders even if we leave every treaty thanks to some international underlying law that blah blah

    What fucking nonsense. We are sovereign. We decide for ourselves. What’s gonna happen if we break this hitherto unknown “customary international law”. Who is going to prosecute. Who cares
  • Scott_xP said:

    @aljwhite

    Supreme Court pres currently making clear it's not *just* the ECHR that applies to this: there are other treaties, including the UN refugee convention, which need to be respected under intl' law

    Oh, what a tangled web we've weaved.
    The whole edifice of post-WW2 treaties needs to go.
    Basically, there's a whole lot that's built up that only makes sense in theory or if it's only exercised in small/modest numbers. It doesn't otherwise.

    But, strong political leadership is needed to fix it. Instead, what I fear we'll get, is a wholesale attack on the courts.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,552
    "David Cameron destroyed the Tories
    His appointment is an act of necromancy
    By Aris Roussinos"

    https://unherd.com/2023/11/david-cameron-destroyed-the-tories/
  • DavidL said:

    Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.

    A response isn't enough.

    How do we control our borders?

    The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.

    That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
    Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forward
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,317
    DavidL said:

    So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.

    As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.

    Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.
    Do you know why our acceptance rate is multiple times that of other countries, is it down to fact that they don't get processed for years and so hard to then turf them out.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591

    Scott_xP said:

    @aljwhite

    Supreme Court pres currently making clear it's not *just* the ECHR that applies to this: there are other treaties, including the UN refugee convention, which need to be respected under intl' law

    Oh, what a tangled web we've weaved.
    The whole edifice of post-WW2 treaties needs to go.
    Hello Vladimir, surprised you have time to post on PB.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    @NatalieElphicke

    The Supreme’s Court decision on Rwanda means the policy is effectively at an end. No planes will be leaving and we now need to move forward.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277

    DavidL said:

    Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.

    A response isn't enough.

    How do we control our borders?

    The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.

    That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
    Of course you’re right. And Braverman - for all her faults - was one of vanishingly few politicians to come out and say this: she said it in New York

    But that makes her a Nazi who must be sacked. It is profoundly ridiculous - and also dangerous
  • glwglw Posts: 9,906
    DavidL said:

    Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.

    It's quite possible that Sunak thought he'd better sack Braverman before the judgement just in case she says or does something really over-the-top in response.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,067
    Leon said:

    MASSIVE BATS EVERYWHERE

    Commendable self awareness.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 5,486
    Leon said:

    MASSIVE BATS EVERYWHERE




  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,011
    So the only person who got put on a plane to Rwanda was Sue-Ellen.

    Things didn't go entirely to plan, as she caught a flight back again.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812
    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.

    As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.

    Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.
    Do you know why our acceptance rate is multiple times that of other countries, is it down to fact that they don't get processed for years and so hard to then turf them out.
    Is it Malcolm? I don't know the statistics for it. But if you are from Iran, for example, and are gay then you are at risk of serious oppression including risk to life. That's roughly 10% of the population of Iran for a starter as well as a large number who will inevitably try it on.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249
    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    Another excellent header.

    The management may be second rate (is that too kind?), but they have first rate egos, and draw first rate salaries.

    I think the Post Office had/have the same problem as Suella Braverman.

    They are both arrogant and ignorant, that's a toxic mix.
    Could also be said of the DfE, DfT, OFQUAL, OFSTED, the Treasury, the DoH, Oxford University's History faculty, the people running the MA in public policy at Birkbeck...

    It's a long list of people involved in running our country and not in a good way.
    I am coming to the conclusion the biggest problem in this country is people vastly overestimate their abilities, particularly those in senior positions.
    That's because they mostly went to private schools. The rot starts there.
    I doubt if they *mostly* went there. Certainly not the boneheads of the NCB, mentioned in the header.

    More, the problem is unwillingness to take responsibility. When something goes wrong, the official response is (a) deny responsibility (b) organise the cover up.
    No, the Privately educated dominate our establishment, including the medical profession.




    The problem is much simpler.
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    Another excellent header.

    The management may be second rate (is that too kind?), but they have first rate egos, and draw first rate salaries.

    I think the Post Office had/have the same problem as Suella Braverman.

    They are both arrogant and ignorant, that's a toxic mix.
    Could also be said of the DfE, DfT, OFQUAL, OFSTED, the Treasury, the DoH, Oxford University's History faculty, the people running the MA in public policy at Birkbeck...

    It's a long list of people involved in running our country and not in a good way.
    I am coming to the conclusion the biggest problem in this country is people vastly overestimate their abilities, particularly those in senior positions.
    That's because they mostly went to private schools. The rot starts there.
    I doubt if they *mostly* went there. Certainly not the boneheads of the NCB, mentioned in the header.

    More, the problem is unwillingness to take responsibility. When something goes wrong, the official response is (a) deny responsibility (b) organise the cover up.
    No, the Privately educated dominate our establishment, including the medical profession.




    The problem is much simpler.
    Certainly the dominant culture on PB of privately educated men doesn't want to accept that the system that they benefited personally from is a large part of the problem of entitlement.
    Read the header.

    The same pattern can be seen in many, many places. The NCB was run by the very opposite of the private educated - yet they were captured by the same mentality we see causing the problems time and again.
  • viewcode said:

    Leon said:

    MASSIVE BATS EVERYWHERE

    STOP TAKING SO MANY DRUGS
    I wish I could !!!!!!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,011
    Leon said:

    MASSIVE BATS EVERYWHERE

    Mr/Ms/Mx Massive must be a very accomplished cricketer.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,188

    DavidL said:

    Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.

    A response isn't enough.

    How do we control our borders?

    The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.

    That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
    Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forward
    I do wonder if other countries might pick it up, I expect if Macron implemented the policy - France's judiciary with it's napoleonic law system would probably have no issue.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277

    Barnesian said:

    TimS said:

    Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?

    - Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive
    - some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks
    - Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner
    - Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen
    - Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen
    - cross fingers and hope for the best?

    Make it easier to enter UK legitimately so no need for boats and then process vey quickly so no need for hotels. Identify barriers to fast processing and remove them. It's not rocket science.
    This is in fact Labour policy (I heard Stephen Kinnock on it in very similar terms).
    We never deport anyone. If we do lefties start weeping on planes

    That said, at some point soon a western nation WILL start deportations on a massive scale. It could be America under Trump. Or Sweden or Austria maybe
  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,976
    edited November 2023
    Barnesian said:

    Endillion said:

    Barnesian said:

    Leon said:

    I sense this is probably true

    "Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.

    I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.

    The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.

    The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.

    They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.

    Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.

    You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.

    Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."

    https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/1724560856153825640?s=20

    The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again

    And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world

    And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?
    If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.

    In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
    Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:




    Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?

    International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are:
    - Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza?
    - If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate?
    - If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?

    FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.

    We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.

    There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
    I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.

    Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.

    The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
    All of that is pretty much what Israel is currently doing already. The bombing has mostly stopped, which is why the death toll is climbing much more slowly than it has been, and the primary focus of the ground troops has been on the tunnels for a couple of weeks now.
    That makes sense. So Israel should declare an end to the bombing and adhere to it. That would take the heat out of the calls for a ceasefire.
    It's cute that you still believe the calls for a ceasefire have anything to do humanitarian concerns.

    Israel's still using its air force and navy as strategic support for the ground troops where necessary - it's just that ground troops are now everywhere in Northern Gaza, so obviously it isn't dropping as much ordnance as it has been.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,145
    edited November 2023
    viewcode said:

    If the Government is looking for a workaround, the trick is to ensure that they are intercepted by Royal Navy ships before they hit UK dry land/shore. That way they never fall under UK jurisdiction and the SC writ doesn't hold sway to ships at sea.

    I also need to point out that the US are decommissioning thirty-odd nearly-new Littoral Command Ships because they don't have the range for long-range combat

    A combination of helicopters and 30-odd LCSs should be more that enough to set up a 24-hr conveyor from UK to Rwanda/wherever, with intercept/processing/first-aid/disembarkation without ever falling under SC jurisdiction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship

    Taking that seriously for a moment :smile:, I don't think that even our landlocked Civil Servants are crazy enough to fall for it, TBH.

    The LCS programme has been such a disaster that it has been cancelled before even getting properly started (and has been kept afloat by Congress in the teeth of USN opposition). They have crews of 70 and operating costs in excess of £50-60 million per ship per year.

    The USA are looking for a rich, but stupid, mark to palm them off onto.

    It would be a worse deal than 25-year-old moth-eaten destroyers for bases done in 1940.
  • Rishi just needs to say:

    Ok I achieved my inflation pledge

    1 out of 5 ain't bad as Meatloaf nearly said

    The rest of it is a * up. We've all suffered enough. Let's have a GE now!
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    Chortle
  • Barnesian said:

    Barnesian said:

    Leon said:

    I sense this is probably true

    "Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.

    I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.

    The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.

    The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.

    They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.

    Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.

    You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.

    Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."

    https://x.com/mdubowitz/status/1724560856153825640?s=20

    The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again

    And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world

    And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?
    If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.

    In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
    Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:




    Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?

    International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are:
    - Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza?
    - If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate?
    - If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?

    FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.

    We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.

    There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
    I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.

    Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.

    The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
    it's worth noting that the use of human shields is itself a war crime, whether foreign hostages (also a war crime other than the soldiers, though rules still apply on how and where they're held), or domestic civilians.
    There is no doubt that Hamas are guilty of war crimes.

    The question for Israel is how best to neutralise Hamas both legally and morally. Bombing is not the best way. It might be legal but it's not moral and for Israel it risks losing international support.

    But they need to keep fighting Hamas and fix the tunnels. That's where Hamas is, and there aren't many civilians in the tunnels.
    And how do they get to the tunnels? It's not a simple solution without control of the ground, which in turn means a lot of urban fighting, which in turn means a lot of civilian casualties if Hamas is going to contest Israel's advance (which of course they are).
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,011

    Hurrah for an independent judiciary.

    Unelected judges deciding domestic policy and an unelected Lord deciding foreign policy. Hurrah for democracy.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485

    Leon said:

    Suella is vindicated again. She says in her letter "we could easily lose this case"

    You think it coincidence that she angled to get fired before this judgment?

    Imagine her having to face the cameras as Home Secretary today...
    Yes, quite. The voice of reason.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,582

    DavidL said:

    Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.

    A response isn't enough.

    How do we control our borders?

    The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.

    That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
    Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forward
    I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.

    If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,188
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.

    A response isn't enough.

    How do we control our borders?

    The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.

    That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
    Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forward
    I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.

    If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.
    Doubt that'll happen, don't forget most of the UN ARE the poorer countries. Far more chance of cogent EU action than UN.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,419
    Scott_xP said:

    @kateferguson4

    Supreme Court rejects the Rwanda policy

    Says they "unanimously agree" with Court of Appeal

    Ugh, split infinitive. Sack them all.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,582
    Leon said:

    MASSIVE BATS EVERYWHERE

    GLENN MAXWELL BATS EVERYWHERE
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,632
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.

    A response isn't enough.

    How do we control our borders?

    The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.

    That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
    Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forward
    I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.

    If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.
    Sounds like how Israel started, except that the land wasn't empty.
  • Let’s be absolutely clear here.

    The problem isn’t the governments intention to try and tackle illegal migration.

    The problem is that this as a policy was full of holes and designed for headlines rather than as a workable policy.

    There are many routes open to the government to tackle illegal migration. Properly resourcing the border force would be a good start. Working with international partners whose borders these people cross to get here would be another. Clarifying and tweaking the law rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater may assist in certain cases. Putting in place a quick and efficient processing/asylum/justice system would mean decisions would be made quicker.

    The government don’t want to do all that, because it’s not catchy, too difficult, and draws attention to the chronic underfunding and mismanagement of the system that they have presided over.

    I am not suggesting these are quick fixes, but let’s not pretend that Rwanda was ever going to be a magic wand.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,188
    New Zealand have had a good world cup, but looks like they're going to be blown away by the Indian juggernaut today.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Suella is vindicated again. She says in her letter "we could easily lose this case"

    If only she had been the person in charge of the policy. She must be so angry with the Home Secretary who was responsible for this.
    LOL. Quite.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,419
    DavidL said:

    So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.

    As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.

    Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.
    I said here, literally years ago, that assylum processing centres should be overseas, but that successful claimants should be granted assylum in the UK. I don't understand why this seems to be sinking in to politicians so slowly.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,582
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.

    A response isn't enough.

    How do we control our borders?

    The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.

    That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
    Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forward
    I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.

    If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.
    Doubt that'll happen, don't forget most of the UN ARE the poorer countries. Far more chance of cogent EU action than UN.
    I suspect that the European countries will have to at least threaten to unilaterally withdraw from the UN agreements.

    I don’t know off hand if the USA ever ratified them in the first place, given their dislike of such international agreement on anything, but they currently have the biggest refugee problem, with sometimes tens of thousands per day arriving from Mexico.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,188
    Pulpstar said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.

    A response isn't enough.

    How do we control our borders?

    The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.

    That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
    Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forward
    I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.

    If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.
    Doubt that'll happen, don't forget most of the UN ARE the poorer countries. Far more chance of cogent EU action than UN.
    To go further, this probably was the real tragedy of leaving the EU. Our interests on issues like this are far more in common with our neighbours than anything global. Perhaps we should have left the UN instead.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Hurrah for an independent judiciary.

    This is why the UK is a great place for international business.

    They know our judiciary will put the government back in their box when appropriate.

    She can always run for the leadership on a platform of abolishing them ?

    But as far as mainstream politics is concerned, she's a busted flush.
    She really isn’t. She’s cleverly detached herself from this - just in time. And she’s detached herself from a guaranteed lost election. She can blame everyone but herself

    She is now the standard bearer of the right and any candidate will need her on board - if she doesn’t win herself

    DUH
    LOL. In your dreams.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 50,249
    edited November 2023
    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    Another excellent header.

    The management may be second rate (is that too kind?), but they have first rate egos, and draw first rate salaries.

    I think the Post Office had/have the same problem as Suella Braverman.

    They are both arrogant and ignorant, that's a toxic mix.
    Could also be said of the DfE, DfT, OFQUAL, OFSTED, the Treasury, the DoH, Oxford University's History faculty, the people running the MA in public policy at Birkbeck...

    It's a long list of people involved in running our country and not in a good way.
    I am coming to the conclusion the biggest problem in this country is people vastly overestimate their abilities, particularly those in senior positions.
    That's because they mostly went to private schools. The rot starts there.
    I doubt if they *mostly* went there. Certainly not the boneheads of the NCB, mentioned in the header.

    More, the problem is unwillingness to take responsibility. When something goes wrong, the official response is (a) deny responsibility (b) organise the cover up.
    No, the Privately educated dominate our establishment, including the medical profession.




    The problem is much simpler.
    MattW said:

    viewcode said:

    If the Government is looking for a workaround, the trick is to ensure that they are intercepted by Royal Navy ships before they hit UK dry land/shore. That way they never fall under UK jurisdiction and the SC writ doesn't hold sway to ships at sea.

    I also need to point out that the US are decommissioning thirty-odd nearly-new Littoral Command Ships because they don't have the range for long-range combat

    A combination of helicopters and 30-odd LCSs should be more that enough to set up a 24-hr conveyor from UK to Rwanda/wherever, with intercept/processing/first-aid/disembarkation without ever falling under SC jurisdiction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship

    Taking that seriously for a moment :smile:, I don't think that even our landlocked Civil Servants are crazy enough to fall for it, TBH.

    The LCS programme has been such a disaster that it has been cancelled before even getting properly started (and has been kept afloat by Congress in the teeth of USN opposition). They have crews of 70 and operating costs in excess of £50-60 million per ship per year.

    The USA are looking for a rich, but stupid, mark to palm them off onto.

    It would be a worse deal than 25-year-old moth-eaten destroyers for bases done in 1940.
    Think historically.

    Hire the Libyan Coastguard to patrol the Channel.

    Any migrants they kidnap will be taken back to Libya, and imprisoned there. For Libyan farmers to bid on their labour - literally auctioned in the town square.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275
    The Tory nutjobs now want to ignore UN conventions. Where does it end .
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,582
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.

    A response isn't enough.

    How do we control our borders?

    The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.

    That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
    Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forward
    I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.

    If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.
    Sounds like how Israel started, except that the land wasn't empty.
    I did actually think about mentioning Israel, and yes it’s not a bad comparison - except that, as you note, the land was disputed and there’s been war there continually ever since.
  • theakestheakes Posts: 930
    Ukraine, yes remember that place! Looks as if something is happening on the east bank of the Dnipro River. Ukranian's sound optimistic but have thrown a general silence around the situation, something they normally do when they are advancing..
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    nico679 said:

    The Tory nutjobs now want to ignore UN conventions. Where does it end .


    ...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,145

    Rishi just needs to say:

    Ok I achieved my inflation pledge

    1 out of 5 ain't bad as Meatloaf nearly said

    The rest of it is a * up. We've all suffered enough. Let's have a GE now!

    Unfortunately it's only days since he blew up his pledge to reduce NHS waiting lists, by only giving the NHS supplementary funding of £100m when they said they needed £2bn.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 22,073

    Scott_xP said:

    @aljwhite

    Supreme Court pres currently making clear it's not *just* the ECHR that applies to this: there are other treaties, including the UN refugee convention, which need to be respected under intl' law

    Oh, what a tangled web we've weaved.
    The whole edifice of post-WW2 treaties needs to go.
    Well I've got five minutes before lunch. Will that be enough time d'ya'think? Or will it perhaps take a bit more than that?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    @TomLarkinSky

    🚨 Ex Cabinet minister Simon Clarke suggests he could submit a letter in Rishi Sunak over Rwanda.

    Says the PM's response to ruling it is a 'confidence issue in his judgement as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party'
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    @PippaCrerar

    Tory right-wing MPs now pushing for emergency legislation to be tabled within days to make the Rwanda scheme work - arguing that parliamentary sovereignty trumps any ruling from Supreme Court.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,145

    Foxy said:

    Sean_F said:

    Foxy said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sean_F said:

    Another excellent header.

    The management may be second rate (is that too kind?), but they have first rate egos, and draw first rate salaries.

    I think the Post Office had/have the same problem as Suella Braverman.

    They are both arrogant and ignorant, that's a toxic mix.
    Could also be said of the DfE, DfT, OFQUAL, OFSTED, the Treasury, the DoH, Oxford University's History faculty, the people running the MA in public policy at Birkbeck...

    It's a long list of people involved in running our country and not in a good way.
    I am coming to the conclusion the biggest problem in this country is people vastly overestimate their abilities, particularly those in senior positions.
    That's because they mostly went to private schools. The rot starts there.
    I doubt if they *mostly* went there. Certainly not the boneheads of the NCB, mentioned in the header.

    More, the problem is unwillingness to take responsibility. When something goes wrong, the official response is (a) deny responsibility (b) organise the cover up.
    No, the Privately educated dominate our establishment, including the medical profession.




    The problem is much simpler.
    MattW said:

    viewcode said:

    If the Government is looking for a workaround, the trick is to ensure that they are intercepted by Royal Navy ships before they hit UK dry land/shore. That way they never fall under UK jurisdiction and the SC writ doesn't hold sway to ships at sea.

    I also need to point out that the US are decommissioning thirty-odd nearly-new Littoral Command Ships because they don't have the range for long-range combat

    A combination of helicopters and 30-odd LCSs should be more that enough to set up a 24-hr conveyor from UK to Rwanda/wherever, with intercept/processing/first-aid/disembarkation without ever falling under SC jurisdiction.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship

    Taking that seriously for a moment :smile:, I don't think that even our landlocked Civil Servants are crazy enough to fall for it, TBH.

    The LCS programme has been such a disaster that it has been cancelled before even getting properly started (and has been kept afloat by Congress in the teeth of USN opposition). They have crews of 70 and operating costs in excess of £50-60 million per ship per year.

    The USA are looking for a rich, but stupid, mark to palm them off onto.

    It would be a worse deal than 25-year-old moth-eaten destroyers for bases done in 1940.
    Think historically.

    Hire the Libyan Coastguard to patrol the Channel.

    Any migrants they kidnap will be taken back to Libya, and imprisoned there. For Libyan farmers to bid on their labour - literally auctioned in the town square.
    We might get a decent deal on the "Libyan Coastguard rebadged as unofficial militia" now that aiui the European Commission no longer employ them.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,188
    theakes said:

    Ukraine, yes remember that place! Looks as if something is happening on the east bank of the Dnipro River. Ukranian's sound optimistic but have thrown a general silence around the situation, something they normally do when they are advancing..

    Last I heard is Ukraine controls Krynki and are looking to expand the bridgehead.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405
    nico679 said:

    The Tory nutjobs now want to ignore UN conventions. Where does it end .

    I think its entirely reasonable to take stock of how the world has changed from 1945 to 2023. I have little doubt that many of those trying to reach Britain have a legal right to asylum. I also have little doubt that many of those trying to reach Britain have no such claim but are trying for a better life for themselves. A more mature debate might look at how best to use such people, who are by their nature the kind of people you want (aspirational, looking to improve their lot). Instead we end up stopping people working and pay huge amounts to house them to do nothing. Its madness.

    But we also have to acknowledge that you cannot simply say - everyone who want to come, can. The rights of the people of the UK have to be involved in the discussion too.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,792
    DavidL said:

    malcolmg said:

    DavidL said:

    So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.

    As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.

    Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.
    Do you know why our acceptance rate is multiple times that of other countries, is it down to fact that they don't get processed for years and so hard to then turf them out.
    Is it Malcolm? I don't know the statistics for it. But if you are from Iran, for example, and are gay then you are at risk of serious oppression including risk to life. That's roughly 10% of the population of Iran for a starter as well as a large number who will inevitably try it on.
    10% of the population of Iran are gay?
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,275
    Scott_xP said:

    @PippaCrerar

    Tory right-wing MPs now pushing for emergency legislation to be tabled within days to make the Rwanda scheme work - arguing that parliamentary sovereignty trumps any ruling from Supreme Court.

    They’re not just odious but thick .
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    @christopherhope

    BREAKING As many as six Conservative MPs are set to submit letters of no confidence in Rishi Sunak’s leadership of the Conservative Party this week, rebel Tory MP Dame Andrea Jenkyns tells @GBNEWS. Tune in now.




    The absurdity of Brexit neatly encapsulated in the words Dame Andrea Jenkyns
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,990
    @breeallegretti

    Lee Anderson says ministers should go ahead and “put planes in the air” to Rwanda anyway.

    When I asked if he was suggesting ignoring the Supreme Court ruling, the Tory deputy chairman said govt should “ignore the laws and send them straight back”.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,677
    viewcode said:

    If the Government is looking for a workaround, the trick is to ensure that they are intercepted by Royal Navy ships before they hit UK dry land/shore. That way they never fall under UK jurisdiction and the SC writ doesn't hold sway to ships at sea.

    Does it? British law still applies to British flagged vessels in territorial waters. Suranne Jones had to solve that murder on a submarine.

    It's not like the glory days of the RN when the Admiralty used to wait for low tide at Wapping to hang larrikins in the intertidal zone beyond landlubber law.

    The UK should pay Wagner to intercept them on Russian flagged vessels, house the fugees on clapped out cruise ships then sail them off to who-gives-a-fuck-where.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 63,032
    edited November 2023
    Scott_xP said:

    @PippaCrerar

    Tory right-wing MPs now pushing for emergency legislation to be tabled within days to make the Rwanda scheme work - arguing that parliamentary sovereignty trumps any ruling from Supreme Court.

    Clearly they didn't listen to the judgment which expanded it beyond the ECHR and by all 5 judges unanimously
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    Scott_xP said:

    @PippaCrerar

    Tory right-wing MPs now pushing for emergency legislation to be tabled within days to make the Rwanda scheme work - arguing that parliamentary sovereignty trumps any ruling from Supreme Court.

    LOL
This discussion has been closed.