Categories
Huge blow for Sunak as Supreme Court flings out his Rwanda plan – politicalbetting.com
Huge blow for Sunak as Supreme Court flings out his Rwanda plan – politicalbetting.com
In my view this was almost inevitable and Sunak showed his naivety by pushing it so far.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
@BethRigby
·
6m
💥👀 So,,,c60 MPs in Commonsense/New Cons group + another 20 MPs would back leaving ECHR
Asked a v senior former cab min if, in the event of the PM deciding not to pursue leaving ECHR (if emergency law fail) whether he’d face a confidence vote, they said: “That’s very plausible”
V v v tight but...
Almost every major country in Europe now has a hardline anti-immigration party gaining significant ground.
If he'd kept her on, she'd be the one having to defend this mess. She'd probably end up resigning and blaming him, but it wouldn't be nearly as damaging - she'd still be the right wing moaner who never actually did anything.
By sacking her and provoking the letter, she's explained how he prevented the necessary parts of the bill before an audience of millions, predicted what will happen, and lo, it has happened. He's calling an emergency press conference - he should resign. Perhaps he will, and make Cameron the caretaker PM?
It was always a bad policy because as well as being inhumane, to work it required fundamental constitutional changes including withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights and making exceptions in our domestic human rights laws ('notwithstanding clauses') which would have targeted and excluded the most vulnerable, which the courts would have been very wary indeed of.
Because (as Braverman's letter very obviously points out) even this government was not willing to remove protection for the most vulnerable refugees, and rightly so, the policy was built on the shakiest of foundations, and was therefore a bad policy. Even the deterrence 'benefit' was very sketchy and unevidenced.
Don't let the government spin that it was the courts' fault the policy failed - it was a bad policy and the government never grappled with its potential unlawfulness.
https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1724736538523697397
We were basically proposing to outsource our asylum claims processing to Rwanda - without setting aside existing protections in UK, not international law.
The ECHR brouhaha is a Tory headbanger distraction - though it's possible some of them are stupid enough to believe it.
nico679 said:
» show previous quotes
So you’d rather have the US model then ?
I would prefer to have the Court of Session as it was always the top Scottish court rather than the fake English made up Supreme Court to gerrymander Scottish cases personally.
This excellent judgement from the SC is good news all round. It has the following effects:
It shows that Braverman pursued a policy that broke the government's own laws, as well as being deranged to anyone with a moral compass.
It enables Sunak (if he has any sense) to say that the idea was OK but implementation is impossible so let's think of other ways to appease the ultra right.
Most important it enables Starmer to say that whatever anyone's views might be on sending refugees to North Korea or Gaza or indeed anywhere, we need to move on from this unlawful Tory scheme and scapegoat someone else for a change (possibly Etonians) and get migrants picking the soft fruit that benefits junkies can't be bothered to do.
Finally, it comes just in time for Christmas so that more than 30 (see the judgement) impecunious barristers will be able to buy shoes for their children and gruel for the table to celebrate, toasting the taxpayer in water as they do so. God bless them every one.
I had a whole fictional process going on in my head. It was magnificent. And now it's worthless. Curse Blair and his constitutional hippy-dippyness.
[EDIT; can't we create a separate Supreme Military Court? Just a little one? It worked so well in Starship Troopers: what could possibly go wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_Martial_Appeal_Court
Also, according to Sunak: "the cost of living is the number one priority for countries up and down the family".
That's a novel take.
The court itself does so some silly things, but I can see a consensus about that forming in Europe, and they could always be made to focus on the actual convention and stop trying to expand it.
None of which impacts on Rwanda one jot, where court decision would still be made under any sensible set of human rights principles in British law.
There certainly isn’t an answer which is both a good answer and a nice answer. (Though of course that doesn’t mean that an answer such as Rwanda which is neither good nor nice must therefore be the right answer).
I haven’t yet seen an answer to the problem better than @rcs1000’s Switzerland solution.
Is there any alternative on offer?
Needs to open with a long silence, an eye roll and a deep sigh. Then “where do I start?”
So whatever the Government does, it can't happen.
Used to work for the Romans.
That is no excuse though for devising hare-brained schemes which are as impractical as they are unlawful.
https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1724749823398596736?t=VVkhjxQa-67hjkpMw92Csw&s=19
I guess you're talking about asylum seekers?
Con Maj 13
Con Seat Losses:
None (or gains) 140
1-50 losses 32
The None and 1-50 Losses combined cover more outcomes - ie 315+ seats rather than 326+ seats but at much longer odds.
Presumably that sort of thinking is why Lord Cameron is FS.
In short, it's one of the few countries that were legally trustworthy and able and willing to do so. I would have gone for the Western Sahara but I am stupid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG0ecfs4ArU
Risk disorder!
Naughty.
One area of possibility is this: The rights of refugees in practice varies according to where to can get to. If you land in country X (poor and war torn) your prospects are rather grey. If you land in Westernrich country, your rights and prospects are greater. Cox's Bazaar and a hotel room in UK are very different.
The Refugee Convention could simply create a level playing field. Asylum claims can be made, but all seeker's rights are identical: a tent in a desert and 3 UN supplied meals a day and transport home the moment the precipitating crisis ends.
A further convention charges the UN with the duty to create conditions in states from which people are fleeing conducive to their return.
No, I don't like it either, but it would concentrate minds.
Opposition to the march 43% vs The march should be banned 48%
So more people want the march to be banned than oppose it....surely there are some who oppose the march but value the right to protest?
And who are the supporters of the march who don't think it should go ahead?
The problem isn't partisan politics, its the fact that the modern Conservative Party doesn't know how to do things. It expelled its brains, Truss exposed the obsolescence of its thought, and now it's moping around the house like a teenager screaming "BUT WHYYYYYY?".
Will somebody please kick this shower out of office so it can regroup and do its adulting? Nobody gains from this. Right-wing voters in the UK are being represented by fools.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12752487/Rishi-Sunak-Rwanda-human-rights-laws-Supreme-Court-Channel-Boats-Suella-Braverman.html
It looks as if my issues can be treated medically, and without surgery, but as a family we are so grateful for all our blessings
Indeed my issues pale into insignificance when we look at Gaza and Ukraine
(BTW being a Naval one, it hinged on exactly how to define an actual act of sodomy, so one does wonder how they reacted to that.)
I went for a swim today, and found that the leisure centre's chip-and-pin system was not working. As I did not have cash on me, they let me swim for free, as long as I paid double next time I come. They did not debit any account, or take any note of my entry.
I will, of course, mention this on Friday when I next swim. But how many people would not?
My fear is that Labour in power, never knowingly un-authoritarian, is not necessarily going to be the best protector here. Sooner or later there will be an inconvenient legal case that makes them start to flirt with the same options.
If I did bet my money would be on Cleverly for the LOTO after GE24 even though he has the hardest job in government
Just saying a country is safe doesn’t make it so .
Sir Simon Clarke has said Rishi Sunak’s response this evening to the Supreme Court’s ruling against Rwanda will be a “confidence issue”, implying it could threaten his leadership of the Conservative Party.
He told Sky News the Government must now respond “quickly and decisively”, and border control is now an “existential challenge” to the Government and democracy.
Asked whether Mr Sunak’s response will be a “critical issue” for him about whether Mr Sunak can lead the Tories into the next election, Sir Simon said “it is a confidence issue in his judgement and leadership of the Conservative Party”.
He warned that if the PM doesn’t step up to sort this issue out once and for all, it could mean letters of no confidence “but I don’t want us to go there”."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1835137/Suella-Braverman-live-Rwanda-Court-Ruling-today-PMQs-latest-news