The danger for the centre and left (and centre-right) here is that Rishi and his backbenchers can shift the Overton window on issues like this even while losing badly. I don't think it's enough for Labour to focus only on practicalities or plans being unworkable. If they want to avoid the ECHR question becoming some kind of national inevitability then they need to protect the taboo. Same applies to a number of other social and human rights policies.
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.
Completely agree. You also have to consider that Starmer is likely to be PM at a time when lots of EU countries are thinking these sorts of thoughts. Hard to resist if we’re the only ones not doing it and the numbers increase.
Also worth noting that the PLP in power will have a lot of MPs representing the seats Boris won, and they will be closer to Tory views on this that’s his current backbenchers.
The danger for the centre and left (and centre-right) here is that Rishi and his backbenchers can shift the Overton window on issues like this even while losing badly. I don't think it's enough for Labour to focus only on practicalities or plans being unworkable. If they want to avoid the ECHR question becoming some kind of national inevitability then they need to protect the taboo. Same applies to a number of other social and human rights policies.
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.
Apparently Braverman thought a different plan could be UK officials process the claims in Rwanda and those successful could be returned to the UK . That would have been lawful . Instead the government seems to think that if parliament deems Rwanda safe then that would help , this is delusional .
Just saying a country is safe doesn’t make it so .
So who was making such a decision if not the home secretary? Rishi?
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
I’m no fan of the Rwanda plan. But what I do like about it – and what many of its critics seem not to recognise – is its recognition that huge numbers of immigrants arriving daily is a problem which needs to be addressed in some way. If not this, then what? More of the same – even better funded more of the same – is not an answer, because we don’t actually deport anyone – so either we just fill our countryside with detention centres or unprocessed immigrants just seep into the country and remain under the radar indefinitely. 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.
Of course there are no answers in any conventional sense. Something has to give. Where?
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.
This would take the absolute worst aspects of refugee experience around the world and apply them everywhere. The most miserable existences, some of which people are born into and live their entire lives, are in those fly-blown tented refugee camps on the borders of warzones. Take the Sahrawis, there for decades, or the Kakuma camp and several others in the Kenyan desert, or the camps housing thousands of Syrians in Jordan. These are refugees from largely intractable disputes who may never return, yet they are stuck in a sort of economically inactive limbo. Surely better to try to phase out this type of camp, where the refugees have no meaningful prospect of integration into the host country. Integration should be an option, after a period (say 2 years), and if neighbouring host countries can't afford this they should be funded by richer countries to do so.
Isn't the scenario in the first half of your comment exactly what the populist right wants?
They want that + not having to pay for it, yes. But from the point of view of geopolitical stability and economic efficiency it makes no sense at all.
The danger for the centre and left (and centre-right) here is that Rishi and his backbenchers can shift the Overton window on issues like this even while losing badly. I don't think it's enough for Labour to focus only on practicalities or plans being unworkable. If they want to avoid the ECHR question becoming some kind of national inevitability then they need to protect the taboo. Same applies to a number of other social and human rights policies.
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.
"The Liberal Democrat Simon Hughes said: "It would be quite wrong to consider any more reduction in our international legal obligations. We have already pulled out of one of our European human rights obligations, to allow detention of people without trial, when no other European country has seen any need to do this.""
Does anyone know exactly what this paragraph refered to?
I’m no fan of the Rwanda plan. But what I do like about it – and what many of its critics seem not to recognise – is its recognition that huge numbers of immigrants arriving daily is a problem which needs to be addressed in some way. If not this, then what? More of the same – even better funded more of the same – is not an answer, because we don’t actually deport anyone – so either we just fill our countryside with detention centres or unprocessed immigrants just seep into the country and remain under the radar indefinitely. 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.
This whinging that there is no alternative answer being offered is silly. As you say at the end Switzerland have a solution. We could copy it, whinge, do nothing, or try and do something both ineffective and illegal. I say copy it.
The Switzerland solution, is a solution to illegal immigration and people working unlawfully, rather than a solution to asylum claims. A subtle but important difference.
One thing that is clear from the Braverman letter is that the Home Secretary herself, who was previously Attorney General (so the government's legal advisor) knew that the Rwanda policy was a huge legal risk, and advised the government of this.
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.
Note the Court said Rwanda is “a state which, in very recent times, has instigated political killings, and has led British police to warn Rwandan nationals living in Britain of credible plans to kill them on the part of that state”.
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.
I have been puzzled as to the selection of Rwanda. Nothing against the country, but why there especially? Even within Africa it seems an unusual choice.
A confluence of factors. It is a young and rapidly-expanding economy, surprisingly prosperous. It dealt with its internal tensions via vicious mass murder and is now stable. It's capable of processing international refugees, willing to do so and thanks to its geography (it's landlocked and high-up) escape is difficult.
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.
I don't see that we should want to prevent people from escaping Rwanda. I would envisage most being sent there making their way home in fairly short order.
Apparently Braverman thought a different plan could be UK officials process the claims in Rwanda and those successful could be returned to the UK . That would have been lawful . Instead the government seems to think that if parliament deems Rwanda safe then that would help , this is delusional .
Just saying a country is safe doesn’t make it so .
But they would be in our custody and we’d still have a duty of care. What would happen to the unsuccessful ones? Left to their own devices in a country they knew nothing of and which might not treat them well. Wouldn’t some of them have a case to claim asylum from… Rwanda?
Sunak: "we will finalise that [a new treaty with Rwanda] in the light of today's judgement and furthermore, if necessary, I am prepared to revisit our domestic legal framework. Let me assure the house my commitment to stopping the boats is unwavering" Seems to me that though the SC has not given the green light, it has given an amber and certainly not a red light.
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?
Good of the swimming pool to allow that. Even if a few people do sneak a one time free swim, it costs the pool very little extra money (may be the price of running a hot air hand dryer a couple of times and some more hot water in the shower). The good marketing they get from this is surely much better in the long term.
Sunak: "we will finalise that [a new treaty with Rwanda] in the light of today's judgement and furthermore, if necessary, I am prepared to revisit our domestic legal framework. Let me assure the house my commitment to stopping the boats is unwavering" Seems to me that though the SC has not given the green light, it has given an amber and certainly not a red light.
I guess this the point Braverman made about going back to ‘square one’ in letter. Surely now no chance of flights taking off to Rwanda before at GE. PM’s signature immigration policy very much grounded
Apparently Braverman thought a different plan could be UK officials process the claims in Rwanda and those successful could be returned to the UK . That would have been lawful . Instead the government seems to think that if parliament deems Rwanda safe then that would help , this is delusional .
Just saying a country is safe doesn’t make it so .
But they would be in our custody and we’d still have a duty of care. What would happen to the unsuccessful ones? Left to their own devices in a country they knew nothing of and which might not treat them well. Wouldn’t some of them have a case to claim asylum from… Rwanda?
The unsuccessful ones wouldn't be assylum seekers would they? They would just be people. The UK Government is not responsible for looking after everyone in the world who leaves somewhere and ends up somewhere else. The whole point is that they'd be left to their own devices somewhere they don't want to be, rather than the UK.
If Suella really suggested and prepared the groundwork for that Plan B, she deserves credit from every PBer, including myself, who criticised the Rwanda scheme as being unfair to genuine claimants.
I’m no fan of the Rwanda plan. But what I do like about it – and what many of its critics seem not to recognise – is its recognition that huge numbers of immigrants arriving daily is a problem which needs to be addressed in some way. If not this, then what? More of the same – even better funded more of the same – is not an answer, because we don’t actually deport anyone – so either we just fill our countryside with detention centres or unprocessed immigrants just seep into the country and remain under the radar indefinitely. 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.
This whinging that there is no alternative answer being offered is silly. As you say at the end Switzerland have a solution. We could copy it, whinge, do nothing, or try and do something both ineffective and illegal. I say copy it.
The Switzerland solution, is a solution to illegal immigration and people working unlawfully, rather than a solution to asylum claims. A subtle but important difference.
Asylum claims are pretty simple. Dont wait three years to process a claim because you ideologically want to skimp on staff and court costs. Process them in weeks rather than years, which means the vast majority can work rather than rely on the state.
The prime minister’s spokesperson dodged questions from journalists about Lee Anderson’s suggestion the UK should break the law, and said they “understand our MPs have strong views”.
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?
The marginal cost to the swimming pool of a freeloading guest is almost nothing, the failure was their problem, and the vast majority of people will be honest on their next visit. Good customer service in my book.
I’m no fan of the Rwanda plan. But what I do like about it – and what many of its critics seem not to recognise – is its recognition that huge numbers of immigrants arriving daily is a problem which needs to be addressed in some way. If not this, then what? More of the same – even better funded more of the same – is not an answer, because we don’t actually deport anyone – so either we just fill our countryside with detention centres or unprocessed immigrants just seep into the country and remain under the radar indefinitely. 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.
This whinging that there is no alternative answer being offered is silly. As you say at the end Switzerland have a solution. We could copy it, whinge, do nothing, or try and do something both ineffective and illegal. I say copy it.
The Switzerland solution, is a solution to illegal immigration and people working unlawfully, rather than a solution to asylum claims. A subtle but important difference.
Asylum claims are pretty simple. Dont wait three years to process a claim because you ideologically want to skimp on staff and court costs. Process them in weeks rather than years, which means the vast majority can work rather than rely on the state.
When there are 20000 one year, 100000 the next, and 20000 the next, how do you staff it?
I’m no fan of the Rwanda plan. But what I do like about it – and what many of its critics seem not to recognise – is its recognition that huge numbers of immigrants arriving daily is a problem which needs to be addressed in some way. If not this, then what? More of the same – even better funded more of the same – is not an answer, because we don’t actually deport anyone – so either we just fill our countryside with detention centres or unprocessed immigrants just seep into the country and remain under the radar indefinitely. 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.
Of course there are no answers in any conventional sense. Something has to give. Where?
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.
This would take the absolute worst aspects of refugee experience around the world and apply them everywhere. The most miserable existences, some of which people are born into and live their entire lives, are in those fly-blown tented refugee camps on the borders of warzones. Take the Sahrawis, there for decades, or the Kakuma camp and several others in the Kenyan desert, or the camps housing thousands of Syrians in Jordan. These are refugees from largely intractable disputes who may never return, yet they are stuck in a sort of economically inactive limbo. Surely better to try to phase out this type of camp, where the refugees have no meaningful prospect of integration into the host country. Integration should be an option, after a period (say 2 years), and if neighbouring host countries can't afford this they should be funded by richer countries to do so.
Isn't the scenario in the first half of your comment exactly what the populist right wants?
They want that + not having to pay for it, yes. But from the point of view of geopolitical stability and economic efficiency it makes no sense at all.
Agree. There is very little that comes from populism that bears scrutiny, despite most populists claiming they are the ones talking "common sense".
Apparently Braverman thought a different plan could be UK officials process the claims in Rwanda and those successful could be returned to the UK . That would have been lawful . Instead the government seems to think that if parliament deems Rwanda safe then that would help , this is delusional .
Just saying a country is safe doesn’t make it so .
But they would be in our custody and we’d still have a duty of care. What would happen to the unsuccessful ones? Left to their own devices in a country they knew nothing of and which might not treat them well. Wouldn’t some of them have a case to claim asylum from… Rwanda?
The unsuccessful ones wouldn't be assylum seekers would they? They would just be people. The UK Government is not responsible for looking after everyone in the world who leaves somewhere and ends up somewhere else. The whole point is that they'd be left to their own devices somewhere they don't want to be, rather than the UK.
If Suella really suggested and prepared the groundwork for that Plan B, she deserves credit from every PBer, including myself, who criticised the Rwanda scheme as being unfair to genuine claimants.
We would have transported them there. How could we not be responsible for their welfare?
I’m no fan of the Rwanda plan. But what I do like about it – and what many of its critics seem not to recognise – is its recognition that huge numbers of immigrants arriving daily is a problem which needs to be addressed in some way. If not this, then what? More of the same – even better funded more of the same – is not an answer, because we don’t actually deport anyone – so either we just fill our countryside with detention centres or unprocessed immigrants just seep into the country and remain under the radar indefinitely. 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.
This whinging that there is no alternative answer being offered is silly. As you say at the end Switzerland have a solution. We could copy it, whinge, do nothing, or try and do something both ineffective and illegal. I say copy it.
The Switzerland solution, is a solution to illegal immigration and people working unlawfully, rather than a solution to asylum claims. A subtle but important difference.
Asylum claims are pretty simple. Dont wait three years to process a claim because you ideologically want to skimp on staff and court costs. Process them in weeks rather than years, which means the vast majority can work rather than rely on the state.
When there are 20000 one year, 100000 the next, and 20000 the next, how do you staff it?
If you look at the annual numbers here, the key table to answer your question is on page 16. The asylum "work in progress" number has risen every year since 2012 despite fairly steady number of applications from 2004-2020.
The system was already under resourced and breaking in the steady state, that is why it has collapsed with the recent spikes. And in the end putting people in hotels whilst banning them from work just costs more than funding the system and getting them processed and either working or deported.
One thing that is clear from the Braverman letter is that the Home Secretary herself, who was previously Attorney General (so the government's legal advisor) knew that the Rwanda policy was a huge legal risk, and advised the government of this.
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.
The Court has done the government a real favour here. Short term pain but long term gain. Had this policy been allowed to proceed it would have caused endless embarrassment and other legal challenges. It was always a really, really stupid idea.
One thing that is clear from the Braverman letter is that the Home Secretary herself, who was previously Attorney General (so the government's legal advisor) knew that the Rwanda policy was a huge legal risk, and advised the government of this.
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.
The Court has done the government a real favour here. Short term pain but long term gain. Had this policy been allowed to proceed it would have caused endless embarrassment and other legal challenges. It was always a really, really stupid idea.
What would be your preferred solution? It seems like an intractable legal problem at this point.
Apparently Braverman thought a different plan could be UK officials process the claims in Rwanda and those successful could be returned to the UK . That would have been lawful . Instead the government seems to think that if parliament deems Rwanda safe then that would help , this is delusional .
Just saying a country is safe doesn’t make it so .
But they would be in our custody and we’d still have a duty of care. What would happen to the unsuccessful ones? Left to their own devices in a country they knew nothing of and which might not treat them well. Wouldn’t some of them have a case to claim asylum from… Rwanda?
The unsuccessful ones wouldn't be assylum seekers would they? They would just be people. The UK Government is not responsible for looking after everyone in the world who leaves somewhere and ends up somewhere else. The whole point is that they'd be left to their own devices somewhere they don't want to be, rather than the UK.
If Suella really suggested and prepared the groundwork for that Plan B, she deserves credit from every PBer, including myself, who criticised the Rwanda scheme as being unfair to genuine claimants.
We would have transported them there. How could we not be responsible for their welfare?
Surely once their claim is denied we give them the option of either being plonked on the next plane to back where they came from, or staying in Rwanda. If they chose to stay, they're on their own, if they leave, they become their own governments problem.
The prime minister’s spokesperson dodged questions from journalists about Lee Anderson’s suggestion the UK should break the law, and said they “understand our MPs have strong views”.
He remains the Tory party deputy chairman.
Shameful but par for the course with this bunch of moronic MPs.
Apparently Braverman thought a different plan could be UK officials process the claims in Rwanda and those successful could be returned to the UK . That would have been lawful . Instead the government seems to think that if parliament deems Rwanda safe then that would help , this is delusional .
Just saying a country is safe doesn’t make it so .
But they would be in our custody and we’d still have a duty of care. What would happen to the unsuccessful ones? Left to their own devices in a country they knew nothing of and which might not treat them well. Wouldn’t some of them have a case to claim asylum from… Rwanda?
The unsuccessful ones wouldn't be assylum seekers would they? They would just be people. The UK Government is not responsible for looking after everyone in the world who leaves somewhere and ends up somewhere else. The whole point is that they'd be left to their own devices somewhere they don't want to be, rather than the UK.
If Suella really suggested and prepared the groundwork for that Plan B, she deserves credit from every PBer, including myself, who criticised the Rwanda scheme as being unfair to genuine claimants.
We would have transported them there. How could we not be responsible for their welfare?
It wouldn't be a surprise. The overseas centre would be the only processing centre for irregular overseas arrivals.
I’m no fan of the Rwanda plan. But what I do like about it – and what many of its critics seem not to recognise – is its recognition that huge numbers of immigrants arriving daily is a problem which needs to be addressed in some way. If not this, then what? More of the same – even better funded more of the same – is not an answer, because we don’t actually deport anyone – so either we just fill our countryside with detention centres or unprocessed immigrants just seep into the country and remain under the radar indefinitely. 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.
Of course there are no answers in any conventional sense. Something has to give. Where?
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.
This would take the absolute worst aspects of refugee experience around the world and apply them everywhere. The most miserable existences, some of which people are born into and live their entire lives, are in those fly-blown tented refugee camps on the borders of warzones. Take the Sahrawis, there for decades, or the Kakuma camp and several others in the Kenyan desert, or the camps housing thousands of Syrians in Jordan. These are refugees from largely intractable disputes who may never return, yet they are stuck in a sort of economically inactive limbo. Surely better to try to phase out this type of camp, where the refugees have no meaningful prospect of integration into the host country. Integration should be an option, after a period (say 2 years), and if neighbouring host countries can't afford this they should be funded by richer countries to do so.
Yes. My (unhappy) suggestion is that you start with a level playing field, so that destination shopping is not doable. A tent in the desert and 3 meals a day.
That does not prevent further action in terms of local or international integration above and beyond this. But my suggestion is that there should be no advantage in destination shopping. This can only be done by the horrible measure I describe.
It is, by the way, remarkable how little interest there is in the west in the places you mention, whereas very small (in relation to the whole) numbers in the west are causing political mayhem.
Worst of all of course is that after all these years of the UN and its agencies there are as many potential refugees as ever. The UN needs much greater resource to do its job.
Cleverly seems a decent guy but I'm not sure there's quite enough nominative determinism going on there for him to be a good choice for leader. If I were a Con member I'd be looking elsewhere.
It's v helpful the Supreme Court has wrapped up a load of UN bullshit in their judgment, it means that we can smash that AND the powers of the Supreme Court in one fell swoop while the pro campaign has to defend taxpayers cash spent on Bellfield's wedding.
One thing that is clear from the Braverman letter is that the Home Secretary herself, who was previously Attorney General (so the government's legal advisor) knew that the Rwanda policy was a huge legal risk, and advised the government of this.
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.
The Court has done the government a real favour here. Short term pain but long term gain. Had this policy been allowed to proceed it would have caused endless embarrassment and other legal challenges. It was always a really, really stupid idea.
My thoughts too. They're off the hook now unless they insist on clambering back onto it.
One thing that is clear from the Braverman letter is that the Home Secretary herself, who was previously Attorney General (so the government's legal advisor) knew that the Rwanda policy was a huge legal risk, and advised the government of this.
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.
The Court has done the government a real favour here. Short term pain but long term gain. Had this policy been allowed to proceed it would have caused endless embarrassment and other legal challenges. It was always a really, really stupid idea.
What would be your preferred solution? It seems like an intractable legal problem at this point.
Short term I would grant amnesties and leave to remain to anyone who has, without fault on their side, been waiting more than 2 years for their application to be processed. That would bring the waiting lists under control.
I would take substantial steps to increase the number of people actually removed. At the moment the courts decisions are not being implemented nearly often enough.
I would insist that all new applications are determined with 3 months with possible extensions where additional evidence is required.
I would take the model of the Albanian agreement and seek to extend it to other suitable countries so that even more applications could be dealt with peremptorily. Conversely, I would have a number of countries where the default assumption was that they should be granted unless there is some compelling reason why not, again with a view to accelerating the system.
Longer term, I would be seeking to raise with the EU and other western countries whether the UN Convention is still appropriate and seek to replace rights of asylum with discretion on the part of the receiving state. I do not see an alternative in the medium to longer term.
It's v helpful the Supreme Court has wrapped up a load of UN bullshit in their judgment, it means that we can smash that AND the powers of the Supreme Court in one fell swoop while the pro campaign has to defend taxpayers cash spent on Bellfield's wedding.
He's looking forward to running the Leave campaign in the ECHR referendum? That's what it sounds like.
It's v helpful the Supreme Court has wrapped up a load of UN bullshit in their judgment, it means that we can smash that AND the powers of the Supreme Court in one fell swoop while the pro campaign has to defend taxpayers cash spent on Bellfield's wedding.
The movement, obviously. Haven't you been following Nadine's Explosive Revelations™?
It's v helpful the Supreme Court has wrapped up a load of UN bullshit in their judgment, it means that we can smash that AND the powers of the Supreme Court in one fell swoop while the pro campaign has to defend taxpayers cash spent on Bellfield's wedding.
He's just annoyed that he didn't get an invitation to the nuptials of a fellow 'career psychopath'.
Good catch, just what the Kiwis could have done without. 30/1
The Indians seem to be turning 400 into the new 300. NZ have a decent bowling attack plus Boult who is exceptional. To score all but 400 against them is remarkable.
Good catch, just what the Kiwis could have done without. 30/1
The Indians seem to be turning 400 into the new 300. NZ have a decent bowling attack plus Boult who is exceptional. To score all but 400 against them is remarkable.
40/2 now, at 5 an over. Total domination by the Indians. The Kiwis are going to be 100 runs short, even if they can keep the wickets down.
It's v helpful the Supreme Court has wrapped up a load of UN bullshit in their judgment, it means that we can smash that AND the powers of the Supreme Court in one fell swoop while the pro campaign has to defend taxpayers cash spent on Bellfield's wedding.
Another mixed bag of local by-elections tomorrow. There is a double by-election in Bolton with defences from Con and Resident; an Ind elected as PC in Ceredigion; a Lab defence in Doncaster; an SNP defence in South Lanarkshire; and an Ind defence in North Somerset.
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?
Good of the swimming pool to allow that. Even if a few people do sneak a one time free swim, it costs the pool very little extra money (may be the price of running a hot air hand dryer a couple of times and some more hot water in the shower). The good marketing they get from this is surely much better in the long term.
Also a thumbs up for your honesty.
Well, I haven't paid yet.
But it got me thinking a little about society and the nature of trust and honesty. Then I'd realise I was thinking of that instead of concentrating on my breathing, and that I was not-so-gently drowning...
It's v helpful the Supreme Court has wrapped up a load of UN bullshit in their judgment, it means that we can smash that AND the powers of the Supreme Court in one fell swoop while the pro campaign has to defend taxpayers cash spent on Bellfield's wedding.
Had to Google 'Bellfield's Wedding'. Didn't the same happen with Peter Sutcliffe? What is the mentality?
OK I am calling it. We are entering the last days of Rishi Sunak. This has the same stench to is as the Lizaster did. A massive policy FUBAR, another massive policy FUBAR being imposed with a massive whip for no reason, rival groups of MPs activating a plan to remove her whilst other MPs activate a plan to sound like they have an IQ of 12.
Hard to see that this government has a majority for anything right now - and the thing the various factions hate most are the other rival factions.
One thing that is clear from the Braverman letter is that the Home Secretary herself, who was previously Attorney General (so the government's legal advisor) knew that the Rwanda policy was a huge legal risk, and advised the government of this.
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.
The Court has done the government a real favour here. Short term pain but long term gain. Had this policy been allowed to proceed it would have caused endless embarrassment and other legal challenges. It was always a really, really stupid idea.
My thoughts too. They're off the hook now unless they insist on clambering back onto it.
Sadly, that seems to be the immediate inclination. Sigh.
OK I am calling it. We are entering the last days of Rishi Sunak. This has the same stench to is as the Lizaster did. A massive policy FUBAR, another massive policy FUBAR being imposed with a massive whip for no reason, rival groups of MPs activating a plan to remove her whilst other MPs activate a plan to sound like they have an IQ of 12.
Hard to see that this government has a majority for anything right now - and the thing the various factions hate most are the other rival factions.
Are you watching Cleverly? The usual suspects seem to be giving him a hearing.
Actually, Rishi is playing a bit of a blinder with the Rwanda judgement: spinning it as a UAT session that has merely flagged up a few bugs to iron out before Go-Live. May not convince everyone, but better than going all fire and brimstone at the 'enemies of the people' (as I suspect would have been Suella's tack).
OK I am calling it. We are entering the last days of Rishi Sunak. This has the same stench to is as the Lizaster did. A massive policy FUBAR, another massive policy FUBAR being imposed with a massive whip for no reason, rival groups of MPs activating a plan to remove her whilst other MPs activate a plan to sound like they have an IQ of 12.
Hard to see that this government has a majority for anything right now - and the thing the various factions hate most are the other rival factions.
But is there any reason to think that a different leader would do any better? The problem is the Conservative movement in general and MPs in particular. There's nothing that they can agree on that conforms to any sort of reality.
Is there still time to call a cheeky General Election before Christmas? Limping off into opposition is pretty much the only way out I can see.
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
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?
Good of the swimming pool to allow that. Even if a few people do sneak a one time free swim, it costs the pool very little extra money (may be the price of running a hot air hand dryer a couple of times and some more hot water in the shower). The good marketing they get from this is surely much better in the long term.
Also a thumbs up for your honesty.
Well, I haven't paid yet.
But it got me thinking a little about society and the nature of trust and honesty. Then I'd realise I was thinking of that instead of concentrating on my breathing, and that I was not-so-gently drowning...
The vast majority of people would be honest in that scenario. Very few would deliberately steal from a local swimming pool, they’re simply forgetting is a more likely risk.
In any case, you are rumbled. You once claimed you always kept a £20 note in your wallet/phone case. Gotcha!
It's v helpful the Supreme Court has wrapped up a load of UN bullshit in their judgment, it means that we can smash that AND the powers of the Supreme Court in one fell swoop while the pro campaign has to defend taxpayers cash spent on Bellfield's wedding.
The movement, obviously. Haven't you been following Nadine's Explosive Revelations™?
NEW: Can confirm at least one Labour shadow minister has written their resignation letter ready to step down today ahead of the potential Gaza vote.
They’ll be voting for a ceasefire.
Several others are expecting to be sacked today
Tory civil war or Labour civil war, which will be the biggest headline tomorrow?
Starmer has been lucky because of the timing . The right wing papers will of course be desperate to big up Labour splits but it looks rather desperate given Sunaks flagship policy has just sunk without trace .
OK I am calling it. We are entering the last days of Rishi Sunak. This has the same stench to is as the Lizaster did. A massive policy FUBAR, another massive policy FUBAR being imposed with a massive whip for no reason, rival groups of MPs activating a plan to remove her whilst other MPs activate a plan to sound like they have an IQ of 12.
Hard to see that this government has a majority for anything right now - and the thing the various factions hate most are the other rival factions.
Are you watching Cleverly? The usual suspects seem to be giving him a hearing.
I think he's more of a caretaker than someone who can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. I admit the pickings are slim. I am almost certain it won't be Braverman, though she might be Kingmaker again. If it's someone of the right, there will be rampant disloyal briefings from the wet faction again, despite urging everyone to be loyal 'for the sake of the party' when their lot are in the driving seat.
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
NEW: Can confirm at least one Labour shadow minister has written their resignation letter ready to step down today ahead of the potential Gaza vote.
They’ll be voting for a ceasefire.
Several others are expecting to be sacked today
Tory civil war or Labour civil war, which will be the biggest headline tomorrow?
Starmer has been lucky because of the timing . The right wing papers will of course be desperate to big up Labour splits but it looks rather desperate given Sunaks flagship policy has just sunk without trace .
As the Ukrainians put it, it has joined the submarine branch.
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
It wouldn’t be a good look. Joe Biden would snub us.
Conflates Remembrance Day with the entire weekend. And the march was not on RD, pace what a number of Tory media outlets and PBTories thought or liked to imply.
Naughty.
Well, sort of. The Palestine March was on Remembrance Day if that is used as a synonym for Armistice Day. It was, of course, the day before Remembrance Sunday.
Sure, but the ceremonial bit is Remembrance Sunday. But your point also helps show how easy it was to conflate them all for political advantage.
It's v helpful the Supreme Court has wrapped up a load of UN bullshit in their judgment, it means that we can smash that AND the powers of the Supreme Court in one fell swoop while the pro campaign has to defend taxpayers cash spent on Bellfield's wedding.
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
I made that point this morning when Heathener was frotagging themselves senseless over that poll.
I think you have made the point a few times
Hello G, Hope you and your good wife are back to 100%. We are both down with Covid, wife got it first and worse than me but still nasty. Think we got it visiting her ill sister in hospital as she is in isolation as well with it to go along with her broken hip & arm.
NEW: Can confirm at least one Labour shadow minister has written their resignation letter ready to step down today ahead of the potential Gaza vote.
They’ll be voting for a ceasefire.
Several others are expecting to be sacked today
Tory civil war or Labour civil war, which will be the biggest headline tomorrow?
Starmer has been lucky because of the timing . The right wing papers will of course be desperate to big up Labour splits but it looks rather desperate given Sunaks flagship policy has just sunk without trace .
The difference between the parties is simple. Starmer has proposed a compromise amendment and will sack anyone who votes with the government. Issue then over as the malcontents slink off to the back benches.
Sunak? What is his way out of this? The nutjobs are massing and they want policies drawn by Braverman in crayon to just be done regardless of legality or practicality. And if Sunak pleads reality they just point to ReFUK for whom reality is a dirty word.
Nineteen percent in the latest poll (and they did publish their full tables). A Remoaner as Foreign Secretary, and a Rwanda-Refuser in the Home Office. A putsch is brewing.
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
Was that a psychoactive ant you just ate ?
It's the bats. He hasn't come down yet. Shhh, you'll wake him.
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
I think we would need to change laws plural going off the court ruling. Doable - parliament is sovereign - but at what cost?
Then we have the elephant in the room. Change the law to make it legal and you still can't enact it as it isn't practical. Replace it with Rwanda 2 based on sanity and we can debate it. But the whine seems to be "you promised us we could send the forrin to the moon and now we can't. Waaaaaa"
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?
Shedloads would not pay it , the country is a cesspit.
Seriously. What is the point in national sovereignty if, because of some mad offshore law, which no one knows about, you can’t protect your own borders from people just invading illegally in dinghies
This is ridiculous. It is fundamental. Lawyers exist to explain and interpret law. They are not law MAKERS. We have elected tribunes for that, and that is the essence of Democracy. Fuck all this shit, change the law, impose the new law, tell the judges to go jump in Hampstead ponds
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
That's the point Rishi has been making. He clearly wants to portray himself as cool Mr Technocrat, finally getting round to untangling the legal messes of previous governments. That's his only hope I think. Suella's victim status was cutting no ice.
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
I think we would need to change laws plural going off the court ruling. Doable - parliament is sovereign - but at what cost?
Then we have the elephant in the room. Change the law to make it legal and you still can't enact it as it isn't practical. Replace it with Rwanda 2 based on sanity and we can debate it. But the whine seems to be "you promised us we could send the forrin to the moon and now we can't. Waaaaaa"
I was quite struck by Mr Anderson demanding that the law be ignored, tout court (so to speak).
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
International law trumps domestic law .
That's not true. There is no international sovereign.
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
It wouldn’t be a good look. Joe Biden would snub us.
Being snarled at by Joe Biden, and being able to deflect such an attack politely, generously, diplomatically, and firmly, without creating an ongoing rift, is what I want to see in a future PM.
Liz Truss was bold enough to piss him off but unable or unwilling to defend her policy when he attacked it. Rishi Sunak would never have the stones even to differ politely. Boris said 'fuck the Americans' - but after he left office. Nobody can just be normal. We know the USA is a hugely dominant force, yet other countries seem to carry on without cravenly acquiescing on every single issue. How does Ireland keep a 12% Corporation Tax level against what must be huge US pressure in its campaign to force everyone else to raise it?
Seriously. What is the point in national sovereignty if, because of some mad offshore law, which no one knows about, you can’t protect your own borders from people just invading illegally in dinghies
This is ridiculous. It is fundamental. Lawyers exist to explain and interpret law. They are not law MAKERS. We have elected tribunes for that, and that is the essence of Democracy. Fuck all this shit, change the law, impose the new law, tell the judges to go jump in Hampstead ponds
You’re blaming the judges because no 10 didn’t do their homework . You’re moaning because they sided against what you would have liked , the next time they might rule on something that you agree with them on . You can’t pick and choose what judgements you think should be ignored .
I’m no fan of the Rwanda plan. But what I do like about it – and what many of its critics seem not to recognise – is its recognition that huge numbers of immigrants arriving daily is a problem which needs to be addressed in some way. If not this, then what? More of the same – even better funded more of the same – is not an answer, because we don’t actually deport anyone – so either we just fill our countryside with detention centres or unprocessed immigrants just seep into the country and remain under the radar indefinitely. 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.
This whinging that there is no alternative answer being offered is silly. As you say at the end Switzerland have a solution. We could copy it, whinge, do nothing, or try and do something both ineffective and illegal. I say copy it.
The Switzerland solution, is a solution to illegal immigration and people working unlawfully, rather than a solution to asylum claims. A subtle but important difference.
Most are bogus asylum claims despite the pathetically lax UK allowing them because it takes years to process them, majority in reality are just illegal immigration so would fit nicely.
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
So, whatever law we broke, change the law. We are a sovereign nation. What IS THE ISSUE
International law trumps domestic law .
No. It really doesn’t. Not if you are a civilized self respecting confident sovereign nation. Let us be that, and make our own laws
Fuck all the lawyers. I despise lawyers. First, let’s kill the lawyers. There is no international law which trumps the law of a nation with the gumption to say F off to lawyers. Let us be that nation
NEW: Can confirm at least one Labour shadow minister has written their resignation letter ready to step down today ahead of the potential Gaza vote.
They’ll be voting for a ceasefire.
Several others are expecting to be sacked today
Tory civil war or Labour civil war, which will be the biggest headline tomorrow?
Starmer has been lucky because of the timing . The right wing papers will of course be desperate to big up Labour splits but it looks rather desperate given Sunaks flagship policy has just sunk without trace .
The difference between the parties is simple. Starmer has proposed a compromise amendment and will sack anyone who votes with the government. Issue then over as the malcontents slink off to the back benches.
Sunak? What is his way out of this? The nutjobs are massing and they want policies drawn by Braverman in crayon to just be done regardless of legality or practicality. And if Sunak pleads reality they just point to ReFUK for whom reality is a dirty word.
Nineteen percent in the latest poll (and they did publish their full tables). A Remoaner as Foreign Secretary, and a Rwanda-Refuser in the Home Office. A putsch is brewing.
Suella claims she had taken legal advice and done the preliminary work on her policy submissions to Sunak. I see no reason to doubt her on that.
Comments
Also worth noting that the PLP in power will have a lot of MPs representing the seats Boris won, and they will be closer to Tory views on this that’s his current backbenchers.
https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2003/jan/27/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices
Key Q from former Home Secretary Theresa May, who points out the Supreme Court ruling was not "contingent on ECHR" - ie they would have ruled the Rwanda plan unlawful even if the UK wasn't part of ECHR
Does anyone know exactly what this paragraph refered to?
Today's expert analyst of the Supreme Court adjudication is...John Hayes. FFS!
Well done to the lawyers and the judiciary!
Seems to me that though the SC has not given the green light, it has given an amber and certainly not a red light.
New Home Sec James Cleverly describes the unanimous Supreme Court judgement as a "temporary setback"
Also a thumbs up for your honesty.
I guess this the point Braverman made about going back to ‘square one’ in letter. Surely now no chance of flights taking off to Rwanda before at GE. PM’s signature immigration policy very much grounded
If Suella really suggested and prepared the groundwork for that Plan B, she deserves credit from every PBer, including myself, who criticised the Rwanda scheme as being unfair to genuine claimants.
The prime minister’s spokesperson dodged questions from journalists about Lee Anderson’s suggestion the UK should break the law, and said they “understand our MPs have strong views”.
He remains the Tory party deputy chairman.
NEW: PM’s press secretary challenges Braverman to publish any document she believes that Sunak signed up to last October.
Confirms they did have policy priority conversation ahead of her endorsement.
If you look at the annual numbers here, the key table to answer your question is on page 16. The asylum "work in progress" number has risen every year since 2012 despite fairly steady number of applications from 2004-2020.
The system was already under resourced and breaking in the steady state, that is why it has collapsed with the recent spikes. And in the end putting people in hotels whilst banning them from work just costs more than funding the system and getting them processed and either working or deported.
That does not prevent further action in terms of local or international integration above and beyond this. But my suggestion is that there should be no advantage in destination shopping. This can only be done by the horrible measure I describe.
It is, by the way, remarkable how little interest there is in the west in the places you mention, whereas very small (in relation to the whole) numbers in the west are causing political mayhem.
Worst of all of course is that after all these years of the UN and its agencies there are as many potential refugees as ever. The UN needs much greater resource to do its job.
It's v helpful the Supreme Court has wrapped up a load of UN bullshit in their judgment, it means that we can smash that AND the powers of the Supreme Court in one fell swoop while the pro campaign has to defend taxpayers cash spent on Bellfield's wedding.
I would take substantial steps to increase the number of people actually removed. At the moment the courts decisions are not being implemented nearly often enough.
I would insist that all new applications are determined with 3 months with possible extensions where additional evidence is required.
I would take the model of the Albanian agreement and seek to extend it to other suitable countries so that even more applications could be dealt with peremptorily. Conversely, I would have a number of countries where the default assumption was that they should be granted unless there is some compelling reason why not, again with a view to accelerating the system.
Longer term, I would be seeking to raise with the EU and other western countries whether the UN Convention is still appropriate and seek to replace rights of asylum with discretion on the part of the receiving state. I do not see an alternative in the medium to longer term.
NEW: Can confirm at least one Labour shadow minister has written their resignation letter ready to step down today ahead of the potential Gaza vote.
They’ll be voting for a ceasefire.
Several others are expecting to be sacked today
But it got me thinking a little about society and the nature of trust and honesty. Then I'd realise I was thinking of that instead of concentrating on my breathing, and that I was not-so-gently drowning...
Hard to see that this government has a majority for anything right now - and the thing the various factions hate most are the other rival factions.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/15/bbc-apologises-newsreader-claims-idf-targeting-medics-gaza/
Is there still time to call a cheeky General Election before Christmas? Limping off into opposition is pretty much the only way out I can see.
In any case, you are rumbled. You once claimed you always kept a £20 note in your wallet/phone case. Gotcha!
(*compos mentis)
Sunak? What is his way out of this? The nutjobs are massing and they want policies drawn by Braverman in crayon to just be done regardless of legality or practicality. And if Sunak pleads reality they just point to ReFUK for whom reality is a dirty word.
Nineteen percent in the latest poll (and they did publish their full tables). A Remoaner as Foreign Secretary, and a Rwanda-Refuser in the Home Office. A putsch is brewing.
Then we have the elephant in the room. Change the law to make it legal and you still can't enact it as it isn't practical. Replace it with Rwanda 2 based on sanity and we can debate it. But the whine seems to be "you promised us we could send the forrin to the moon and now we can't. Waaaaaa"
This is ridiculous. It is fundamental. Lawyers exist to explain and interpret law. They are not law MAKERS. We have elected tribunes for that, and that is the essence of Democracy. Fuck all this shit, change the law, impose the new law, tell the judges to go jump in Hampstead ponds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiBKPxj1L-Y
I am about to eat a ant
Try it. S’funny
Tories used to be the party of Law and Order.
Liz Truss was bold enough to piss him off but unable or unwilling to defend her policy when he attacked it. Rishi Sunak would never have the stones even to differ politely. Boris said 'fuck the Americans' - but after he left office. Nobody can just be normal. We know the USA is a hugely dominant force, yet other countries seem to carry on without cravenly acquiescing on every single issue. How does Ireland keep a 12% Corporation Tax level against what must be huge US pressure in its campaign to force everyone else to raise it?
Fuck all the lawyers. I despise lawyers. First, let’s kill the lawyers. There is no international law which trumps the law of a nation with the gumption to say F off to lawyers. Let us be that nation