Not really - emergency half way house legislation to look active without really taking the necessary steps. He won't let a foreign court block this but patently clear domestic courts will continue to block this until long after he's ridden in to the sunset.
He may be angling for a show-down with the Lords (which now has a veto this side of the election).
Are there enough one nation Con rebels within the HoC to scupper any ECHR withdrawal?
ECHR withdrawal means breaching the GFA. So possibly.
But it'd never get through the Lords.
Easy…create lots more Tory peers as George V would have done in 1911. Of course I stand ready to serve.
🚨 NEW: First YouGov snap poll on the Rwanda judgement.
What should govt do now? - Scrap the policy: 39% - Similar agreement, new country: 29%
What should Britain do on ECHR? - Remain member: 51% - Withdraw: 28%
A simplistic question given that the UK would have to withdraw from all conventions related to refugees and do the public realize that it would be the Tories re-writing our human rights .
Our rights derive from domestic laws, not international treaties.
Interesting, and quite revealing, that you conceive of human rights as being something bestowed on individuals by the state rather than being inherent to all human beings - codified (and indeed quite often restricted in various ways) but not given by law.
That's an incredibly bad faith interpretation of a response to someone talking about "the Tories re-writing our human rights". How, if they are inherent to all human beings, can they be rewritten by the Tories?
Not really - emergency half way house legislation to look active without really taking the necessary steps. He won't let a foreign court block this but patently clear domestic courts will continue to block this until long after he's ridden in to the sunset.
Indeed. The whole ECHR angle is a total red herring here, in my view (a dog whistle to the Brexit-mindset).
The fact is the courts found (as a point of fact) a real risk of claims being wrongly determined in Rwanda with individuals returned to unsafe countries of origin.
For the Lee Anderson tendency, the response to that is to say "f*** it - I don't care".
But that isn't Sunak's (stated) position. His position is he disagrees with the factual conclusion on safety of individuals sent to Rwanda. That just isn't a legal point or a matter deriving from "foreign courts" - to clear that hurdle, he needs to demonstrate Rwanda is in fact safe.
I understand his suggestion is Parliament could legislate to simply say it is safe. That just isn't legally tenable - Parliament is sovereign in that it can make rules... it can't make facts. If Parliament says two plus two is five, it simply doesn't make it so. I don't know who the Attorney General is now but no competent one will say that is workable.
Not really - emergency half way house legislation to look active without really taking the necessary steps. He won't let a foreign court block this but patently clear domestic courts will continue to block this until long after he's ridden in to the sunset.
He may be angling for a show-down with the Lords (which now has a veto this side of the election).
Are there enough one nation Con rebels within the HoC to scupper any ECHR withdrawal?
ECHR withdrawal means breaching the GFA. So possibly.
But it'd never get through the Lords.
In any event, you don’t recruit this cabinet of you can conceive of withdrawing from the ECHR.
Not really - emergency half way house legislation to look active without really taking the necessary steps. He won't let a foreign court block this but patently clear domestic courts will continue to block this until long after he's ridden in to the sunset.
Indeed. The whole ECHR angle is a total red herring here, in my view (a dog whistle to the Brexit-mindset).
The fact is the courts found (as a point of fact) a real risk of claims being wrongly determined in Rwanda with individuals returned to unsafe countries of origin.
For the Lee Anderson tendency, the response to that is to say "f*** it - I don't care".
But that isn't Sunak's (stated) position. His position is he disagrees with the factual conclusion on safety of individuals sent to Rwanda. That just isn't a legal point or a matter deriving from "foreign courts" - to clear that hurdle, he needs to demonstrate Rwanda is in fact safe.
I understand his suggestion is Parliament could legislate to simply say it is safe. That just isn't legally tenable - Parliament is sovereign in that it can make rules... it can't make facts. If Parliament says two plus two is five, it simply doesn't make it so. I don't know who the Attorney General is now but no competent one will say that is workable.
Yes, but the other part of his proposal seems to be a treaty with Rwanda. There is a case to be made that that, together with some other changes to the scheme, alters the facts on the ground.
I will never agree with this policy, but I can see that point.
Since it's been a while since yours truly last attended a performance of "Oklahoma!" can some kind soul with a theatrical bent (in literal sense) please tell me, what precisely is the "profane and sexual content" of this allegedly proto-Woke musical?"
Non-monogamy The participants often flirt with two or more people, thus:
Laurey with Curly and Jud
Annie with Will and Ali
Curly with Gertie and Laurey
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Violence and threat
Curly fight with Jud
Jud threatens Laurey
Curly kills Jud in self-defense.
Drugs
Laurey uses a bottle of smelling salts to force a dream state
Sexual violence and advances without consent
Jud threatens Laurey
Jud tries to kiss Laurey
Jud sneers that Laurey will never be rid of him
Breach of promise
Curly dishonestly offers Laurey a surrey (a coach) with a fringe on top, despite not having funds for neither the surrey nor the fringe.
Other
People try to buy favours by buying hampers etc
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Summary
In short. Jud is rapey, Gertie is slutty, nobody is faithful to anybody, Curly is a vigilante murder, guns are frequently handled in breach of NRA guidelines resulting in unwarranted discharge, drugs are used, there is lies and deceit. The only thing wholesome about the whole affair is that it is in fact a beautiful morning.
Alternative summary of Oklahoma: one good song and even that's rubbish.
1. They could seriously damage the Labour Party at the next GE. 2. They could be destroying their careers on the eve of a Labour Government 3. Are both of the above worth it bearing in mind Bibi couldn't give a toss if the UK Parliament demands a ceasefire in Gaza?
While this topic obviously stirs deep passions, it is nonetheless remarkable that we could be looking at multiple front bench resignations over what form of words a party not in government uses about a conflict not involving Britain, in a statement which will be ignored by all engaged in the conflict.
Well that's the Labour Party for you. Why pitch for government when perpetual opposition is the alternative?
Mind you it's a shame the likes of Rosena are for the chop.
Brilliant stunt by the SNP though!
In part it's about the constituencies the rebels represent, I think?
Yes but is that good do you think? Shouldn't MPs be guided by their own principles and ideology regardless of make-up of their particular constituency? I realise that is a naive remark.
How do the constituents judge their MP, if not by their voting record?
Indeed. And main reason why it was for a loooong period official parliamentary policy to prohibit reporting of debates AND individual votes by Lords and MPs.
Prohibition is still on the books, but suspended except in rare (at least so far) special circumstances, for example occasional "secret debates" in House of Commons during WW2.
🚨 NEW: First YouGov snap poll on the Rwanda judgement.
What should govt do now? - Scrap the policy: 39% - Similar agreement, new country: 29%
What should Britain do on ECHR? - Remain member: 51% - Withdraw: 28%
A simplistic question given that the UK would have to withdraw from all conventions related to refugees and do the public realize that it would be the Tories re-writing our human rights .
Our rights derive from domestic laws, not international treaties.
Interesting, and quite revealing, that you conceive of human rights as being something bestowed on individuals by the state rather than being inherent to all human beings - codified (and indeed quite often restricted in various ways) but not given by law.
That's an incredibly bad faith interpretation of a response to someone talking about "the Tories re-writing our human rights". How, if they are inherent to all human beings, can they be rewritten by the Tories?
Governments can restrict human rights, certainly. Quite a lot do around the world, and in many cases far more radically than even Lee Anderson would in his moistest dreams. On the more positive side, they can codify them in an attempt to make them easier to exercise.
🚨 NEW: First YouGov snap poll on the Rwanda judgement.
What should govt do now? - Scrap the policy: 39% - Similar agreement, new country: 29%
What should Britain do on ECHR? - Remain member: 51% - Withdraw: 28%
A simplistic question given that the UK would have to withdraw from all conventions related to refugees and do the public realize that it would be the Tories re-writing our human rights .
Our rights derive from domestic laws, not international treaties.
Interesting, and quite revealing, that you conceive of human rights as being something bestowed on individuals by the state rather than being inherent to all human beings - codified (and indeed quite often restricted in various ways) but not given by law.
Not to mention that international law is often (though not always) codified into domestic law.
Since it's been a while since yours truly last attended a performance of "Oklahoma!" can some kind soul with a theatrical bent (in literal sense) please tell me, what precisely is the "profane and sexual content" of this allegedly proto-Woke musical?"
Non-monogamy The participants often flirt with two or more people, thus:
Laurey with Curly and Jud
Annie with Will and Ali
Curly with Gertie and Laurey
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Violence and threat
Curly fight with Jud
Jud threatens Laurey
Curly kills Jud in self-defense.
Drugs
Laurey uses a bottle of smelling salts to force a dream state
Sexual violence and advances without consent
Jud threatens Laurey
Jud tries to kiss Laurey
Jud sneers that Laurey will never be rid of him
Breach of promise
Curly dishonestly offers Laurey a surrey (a coach) with a fringe on top, despite not having funds for neither the surrey nor the fringe.
Other
People try to buy favours by buying hampers etc
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Summary
In short. Jud is rapey, Gertie is slutty, nobody is faithful to anybody, Curly is a vigilante murder, guns are frequently handled in breach of NRA guidelines resulting in unwarranted discharge, drugs are used, there is lies and deceit. The only thing wholesome about the whole affair is that it is in fact a beautiful morning.
Alternative summary of Oklahoma: one good song and even that's rubbish.
One line summary of "War and Peace": "army invades, army retreats"
The Sunak announcement is just another very obvious can kicking exercise. The Tory right are, however, probably dumb enough to buy it.
Also he can't pass legislation. Parliament passes legislation. And the Lords could choose to block this.
I suspect the Lords blocking it and then putting it in the manifesto is the best outcome for them now. Otherwise it will just get blocked by the courts again.
Since it's been a while since yours truly last attended a performance of "Oklahoma!" can some kind soul with a theatrical bent (in literal sense) please tell me, what precisely is the "profane and sexual content" of this allegedly proto-Woke musical?"
Non-monogamy The participants often flirt with two or more people, thus:
Laurey with Curly and Jud
Annie with Will and Ali
Curly with Gertie and Laurey
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Violence and threat
Curly fight with Jud
Jud threatens Laurey
Curly kills Jud in self-defense.
Drugs
Laurey uses a bottle of smelling salts to force a dream state
Sexual violence and advances without consent
Jud threatens Laurey
Jud tries to kiss Laurey
Jud sneers that Laurey will never be rid of him
Breach of promise
Curly dishonestly offers Laurey a surrey (a coach) with a fringe on top, despite not having funds for neither the surrey nor the fringe.
Other
People try to buy favours by buying hampers etc
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Summary
In short. Jud is rapey, Gertie is slutty, nobody is faithful to anybody, Curly is a vigilante murder, guns are frequently handled in breach of NRA guidelines resulting in unwarranted discharge, drugs are used, there is lies and deceit. The only thing wholesome about the whole affair is that it is in fact a beautiful morning.
Alternative summary of Oklahoma: one good song and even that's rubbish.
It vaguely recalls an American complaint about a school singing Oom Pa Pa from Oliver! A prostitution-filled drinking song, which to be fair, it is.
The Sunak announcement is just another very obvious can kicking exercise. The Tory right are, however, probably dumb enough to buy it.
Also he can't pass legislation. Parliament passes legislation. And the Lords could choose to block this.
I suspect the Lords blocking it and then putting it in the manifesto is the best outcome for them now. Otherwise it will just get blocked by the courts again.
If the government is able to legislate to prevent the courts finding its actions unlawful, then we de facto no longer have an independent judiciary. So, it's a lot more serious than can kicking.
Since it's been a while since yours truly last attended a performance of "Oklahoma!" can some kind soul with a theatrical bent (in literal sense) please tell me, what precisely is the "profane and sexual content" of this allegedly proto-Woke musical?"
Non-monogamy The participants often flirt with two or more people, thus:
Laurey with Curly and Jud
Annie with Will and Ali
Curly with Gertie and Laurey
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Violence and threat
Curly fight with Jud
Jud threatens Laurey
Curly kills Jud in self-defense.
Drugs
Laurey uses a bottle of smelling salts to force a dream state
Sexual violence and advances without consent
Jud threatens Laurey
Jud tries to kiss Laurey
Jud sneers that Laurey will never be rid of him
Breach of promise
Curly dishonestly offers Laurey a surrey (a coach) with a fringe on top, despite not having funds for neither the surrey nor the fringe.
Other
People try to buy favours by buying hampers etc
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Summary
In short. Jud is rapey, Gertie is slutty, nobody is faithful to anybody, Curly is a vigilante murder, guns are frequently handled in breach of NRA guidelines resulting in unwarranted discharge, drugs are used, there is lies and deceit. The only thing wholesome about the whole affair is that it is in fact a beautiful morning.
Thanks for this - esp. re: "Surrey with a Fringe on Top"!
PS - so which politico does THAT phrase conjure up?
Not really - emergency half way house legislation to look active without really taking the necessary steps. He won't let a foreign court block this but patently clear domestic courts will continue to block this until long after he's ridden in to the sunset.
Indeed. The whole ECHR angle is a total red herring here, in my view (a dog whistle to the Brexit-mindset).
The fact is the courts found (as a point of fact) a real risk of claims being wrongly determined in Rwanda with individuals returned to unsafe countries of origin.
For the Lee Anderson tendency, the response to that is to say "f*** it - I don't care".
But that isn't Sunak's (stated) position. His position is he disagrees with the factual conclusion on safety of individuals sent to Rwanda. That just isn't a legal point or a matter deriving from "foreign courts" - to clear that hurdle, he needs to demonstrate Rwanda is in fact safe.
I understand his suggestion is Parliament could legislate to simply say it is safe. That just isn't legally tenable - Parliament is sovereign in that it can make rules... it can't make facts. If Parliament says two plus two is five, it simply doesn't make it so. I don't know who the Attorney General is now but no competent one will say that is workable.
Yes, but the other part of his proposal seems to be a treaty with Rwanda. There is a case to be made that that, together with some other changes to the scheme, alters the facts on the ground.
I will never agree with this policy, but I can see that point.
I agree with that, yes. But again it is totally unrelated to ECHR matters and that is a red herring being thrown out there. Sunak himself correctly says sending asylum applicants for processing in a safe country is lawful and the courts have confirmed that. But you make it safe by making it safe, not legislating to say it is safe - that just isn't how the law works.
Sunak proved again that, for all the respectable vibes he emits, at root he’s not a moderate he’s a reactionary. His wilful misinterpretation of the ruling in his speech is straight out of MAGA. Notably less inflammatory language from the actual Home Secretary today
Sunak proved again that, for all the respectable vibes he emits, at root he’s not a moderate he’s a reactionary. His wilful misinterpretation of the ruling in his speech is straight out of MAGA. Notably less inflammatory language from the actual Home Secretary today
You thought that was authentic rather than trying to play to the gallery? Takes all sorts I suppose.
@lizziedearden Prime minister Rishi Sunak ended his press conference on "emergency legislation" this afternoon by saying: "We will stop the boats and getting this policy working is vital to doing that"
Not really - emergency half way house legislation to look active without really taking the necessary steps. He won't let a foreign court block this but patently clear domestic courts will continue to block this until long after he's ridden in to the sunset.
He may be angling for a show-down with the Lords (which now has a veto this side of the election).
Are there enough one nation Con rebels within the HoC to scupper any ECHR withdrawal?
ECHR withdrawal means breaching the GFA. So possibly.
But it'd never get through the Lords.
Easy…create lots more Tory peers as George V would have done in 1911. Of course I stand ready to serve.
I'm fine with that precedent.
George V demanded a general election before he was willing to commit to creating the peers necessary.
These days, such a course wouldn't be necessary. If an election returned a majority in favour of the policy, the Parliament Act would suffice if the Lords continued to block.
Since it's been a while since yours truly last attended a performance of "Oklahoma!" can some kind soul with a theatrical bent (in literal sense) please tell me, what precisely is the "profane and sexual content" of this allegedly proto-Woke musical?"
Non-monogamy The participants often flirt with two or more people, thus:
Laurey with Curly and Jud
Annie with Will and Ali
Curly with Gertie and Laurey
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Violence and threat
Curly fight with Jud
Jud threatens Laurey
Curly kills Jud in self-defense.
Drugs
Laurey uses a bottle of smelling salts to force a dream state
Sexual violence and advances without consent
Jud threatens Laurey
Jud tries to kiss Laurey
Jud sneers that Laurey will never be rid of him
Breach of promise
Curly dishonestly offers Laurey a surrey (a coach) with a fringe on top, despite not having funds for neither the surrey nor the fringe.
Other
People try to buy favours by buying hampers etc
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Summary
In short. Jud is rapey, Gertie is slutty, nobody is faithful to anybody, Curly is a vigilante murder, guns are frequently handled in breach of NRA guidelines resulting in unwarranted discharge, drugs are used, there is lies and deceit. The only thing wholesome about the whole affair is that it is in fact a beautiful morning.
Alternative summary of Oklahoma: one good song and even that's rubbish.
1. They could seriously damage the Labour Party at the next GE. 2. They could be destroying their careers on the eve of a Labour Government 3. Are both of the above worth it bearing in mind Bibi couldn't give a toss if the UK Parliament demands a ceasefire in Gaza?
While this topic obviously stirs deep passions, it is nonetheless remarkable that we could be looking at multiple front bench resignations over what form of words a party not in government uses about a conflict not involving Britain, in a statement which will be ignored by all engaged in the conflict.
Well that's the Labour Party for you. Why pitch for government when perpetual opposition is the alternative?
Mind you it's a shame the likes of Rosena are for the chop.
Brilliant stunt by the SNP though!
In part it's about the constituencies the rebels represent, I think?
Yes but is that good do you think? Shouldn't MPs be guided by their own principles and ideology regardless of make-up of their particular constituency? I realise that is a naive remark.
Not sure really. One of the supposed strengths of our system is the link between each MP and the constituents they represent. So if those constituents by clear majority feel strongly about something (be it Gaza carnage or Heathrow expansion) that's going to exert pressure on their MP and I'd say that's arguably a good thing so long as it's just an input into what the MP says and does and how they vote rather than them discarding all their personal principles and judgement and party loyalty and becoming a mere cypher for those who elected them.
Course there is another factor here which is that (unlike say my Heathrow example) whatever position these MPs choose to take on Gaza will have no practical impact because it's not a Westminster matter. Therefore you could say it's pure virtue signalling. Otoh that goes for all our MPs and pundits (on this issue) so it's maybe unfair to single anybody out on that score, whichever 'side' they're on.
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!
Yeah, I used that the other day. Oddly enough, because the Co-op (again) had no electronic payments. At the bake sale at my son's school on Friday, I had to use my emergency locker-room pound coin to buy two cupcakes.
I need to make a trip to the cashpoint.
You must live in a weird backwater. I haven't needed to use cash for anything in the UK for years. The bake sale needs to get SumUp. £19.99 and they will make more money. We use it for sales at the rugby club barbecue. Revenues quickly rose. Absolute winner.
Your local Co-Op sounds farcically shit.
LOL. No. Need pound coins for lockers at the pool and for the supermarket trolleys. As for the Co-Op; it's noting to do with them. As I've mentioned before, scrotes keep on nicking the telecoms cables. (I've no idea why they can't/don't use 5G or whatever.)
Perhaps because you and I have different needs, interests and hobbies, our need for cash is different?
Do people still carry around 'pound coins'? FFS.
Well, yes. If you want to use the lockers. Or the local Mozzie's supermarket trolleys.
So yeah.
You don't need coins... FFS
Look, a word to the wise. If you're going to troll, never push things too far.
I'm not trolling. How is pointing out the truth to a load of cash-fetishist nostalgics trolling?
Surely the sensible thing to do is to give yourself multiple options for paying for things so you don't get caught out. Nobody needs to adopt an absolutist approach, it doesn't have to be all cash or no cash.
I don't use cash for most things but there are definitely times when cash is the more convenient so I don't see the point of denying yourself that option.
I still use cash about a dozen times month. Only this morning all the payment machines were down at our regular coffee shop and the staff were telling me that about 90% of their customers had the cash to pay instead so it wasn't a problem for them. The one thing that does intrigue me is that I assume that if a company sends someone to do a job for you at your home that you never tip the workers if they do a good job or go the extra mile. You must be really popular!
@RobDotHutton Is that how this works? Parliament votes something and then it's true? Because if so, I really feel we haven't been putting this tool to best use.
Sky reporting the conservatives and labour have done a deal over the SNP ceasefire amendment, whereby the conservatives abstain on labour's amendment thereby it passing and the SNP failing
Not really - emergency half way house legislation to look active without really taking the necessary steps. He won't let a foreign court block this but patently clear domestic courts will continue to block this until long after he's ridden in to the sunset.
He may be angling for a show-down with the Lords (which now has a veto this side of the election).
Are there enough one nation Con rebels within the HoC to scupper any ECHR withdrawal?
ECHR withdrawal means breaching the GFA. So possibly.
But it'd never get through the Lords.
Easy…create lots more Tory peers as George V would have done in 1911. Of course I stand ready to serve.
I'm fine with that precedent.
George V demanded a general election before he was willing to commit to creating the peers necessary.
These days, such a course wouldn't be necessary. If an election returned a majority in favour of the policy, the Parliament Act would suffice if the Lords continued to block.
I wasn’t being entirely serious, though my peerage is a little overdue.
The Sunak announcement is just another very obvious can kicking exercise. The Tory right are, however, probably dumb enough to buy it.
Also he can't pass legislation. Parliament passes legislation. And the Lords could choose to block this.
I suspect the Lords blocking it and then putting it in the manifesto is the best outcome for them now. Otherwise it will just get blocked by the courts again.
If "Rwanda is a safe country" becomes a Tory Party Manifesto commitment, tactical voting is going to be completely off the charts come the next election.
Something that stupid is going to ensure the Tory party compete with the SNP for third party status...
Not really - emergency half way house legislation to look active without really taking the necessary steps. He won't let a foreign court block this but patently clear domestic courts will continue to block this until long after he's ridden in to the sunset.
He may be angling for a show-down with the Lords (which now has a veto this side of the election).
Are there enough one nation Con rebels within the HoC to scupper any ECHR withdrawal?
ECHR withdrawal means breaching the GFA. So possibly.
But it'd never get through the Lords.
Easy…create lots more Tory peers as George V would have done in 1911. Of course I stand ready to serve.
I'm fine with that precedent.
George V demanded a general election before he was willing to commit to creating the peers necessary.
These days, such a course wouldn't be necessary. If an election returned a majority in favour of the policy, the Parliament Act would suffice if the Lords continued to block.
I wasn’t being entirely serious, though my peerage is a little overdue.
A general point about immigration, legal and otherwise: In the US, it is common for people on both sides to see it as a single problem, rather than a whole array of problems.
For example: Immigration from India has led, unsurprisingly, to increasing incidents of caste discrimination which, naturally, is leading to calls for laws against it.
That is an entirely different problem from those caused by illiterate farm workers sneaking across the border from Mexico.
From what I have read on this site, I suspect many in the UK are making the same error, grouping far too many separate problems together.
🚨 NEW: First YouGov snap poll on the Rwanda judgement.
What should govt do now? - Scrap the policy: 39% - Similar agreement, new country: 29%
What should Britain do on ECHR? - Remain member: 51% - Withdraw: 28%
A simplistic question given that the UK would have to withdraw from all conventions related to refugees and do the public realize that it would be the Tories re-writing our human rights .
Our rights derive from domestic laws, not international treaties.
Interesting, and quite revealing, that you conceive of human rights as being something bestowed on individuals by the state rather than being inherent to all human beings - codified (and indeed quite often restricted in various ways) but not given by law.
That's an incredibly bad faith interpretation of a response to someone talking about "the Tories re-writing our human rights". How, if they are inherent to all human beings, can they be rewritten by the Tories?
Governments can restrict human rights, certainly. Quite a lot do around the world, and in many cases far more radically than even Lee Anderson would in his moistest dreams. On the more positive side, they can codify them in an attempt to make them easier to exercise.
What they don't do is confer them as you said.
I made a more narrow claim about the relationship between domestic and international law (which is just as much a product of states as domestic law), but it's absolutely the case that many of the things we now routinely talk of as 'rights' are purely positive law conferred by the state.
Since it's been a while since yours truly last attended a performance of "Oklahoma!" can some kind soul with a theatrical bent (in literal sense) please tell me, what precisely is the "profane and sexual content" of this allegedly proto-Woke musical?"
Non-monogamy The participants often flirt with two or more people, thus:
Laurey with Curly and Jud
Annie with Will and Ali
Curly with Gertie and Laurey
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Violence and threat
Curly fight with Jud
Jud threatens Laurey
Curly kills Jud in self-defense.
Drugs
Laurey uses a bottle of smelling salts to force a dream state
Sexual violence and advances without consent
Jud threatens Laurey
Jud tries to kiss Laurey
Jud sneers that Laurey will never be rid of him
Breach of promise
Curly dishonestly offers Laurey a surrey (a coach) with a fringe on top, despite not having funds for neither the surrey nor the fringe.
Other
People try to buy favours by buying hampers etc
Will tells Annie she must stop flirting with others
Summary
In short. Jud is rapey, Gertie is slutty, nobody is faithful to anybody, Curly is a vigilante murder, guns are frequently handled in breach of NRA guidelines resulting in unwarranted discharge, drugs are used, there is lies and deceit. The only thing wholesome about the whole affair is that it is in fact a beautiful morning.
Alternative summary of Oklahoma: one good song and even that's rubbish.
The recent re-interpreted version that was on Broadway and then the West End is a rather uncomfortable watch.
Twas rather good though so we saw it both on Broadway and earlier this year in the West End.
Sunak proved again that, for all the respectable vibes he emits, at root he’s not a moderate he’s a reactionary. His wilful misinterpretation of the ruling in his speech is straight out of MAGA. Notably less inflammatory language from the actual Home Secretary today
If Sunak really wanted to stop the boats, he would have strengthened the Illegal Migration Bill in the way Suella urged him to. He's not exercised by boats, he'll just say anything to try to keep his premierhsip afloat (hehehe) at this point. Why? Pass. Feels like sheer awkwardness at this stage. I don't think he's trying to win the next GE.
Every time Andy JS or Anabobazina talk about cash I shall do a thread on Scottish independence or AV.
I love AV threads!
I don’t like AV threads, but I’d rank them more highly than Indie threads.
Sorry…..
Something more controversial maybe? How about: Votes in Parliament should be by secret ballot. Always a conversation stopper that one.
Does anyone actually think that?
I’m not sure whether I actually think it would be a good thing on net, but there are definitely arguments in favour. The people get to vote in a secret ballot for reasons that are held to be valid & good. Don’t those justifications hold for MPs too? I suspect they do.
No of course they don't. MPs are supposed to be representatives of the voters. How can voters decide whether they approve of their MP if they don't know how they voted. It's utterly absurd.
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
It's so funny that Sunak's attempt to portray the party as moderate and sensible by sacking Braverman and appointing Cameron has shattered into tiny pieces after just two days.
I'll try to have a report on our elections here in the next week or so, for what they say about American politics generally. (I have been leaving the Seattle results to SS2, since he knows -- and probably cares -- more about them than I do.)
"Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton 💥Anonymous Home Office official explains why no matter who is Home Secretary, Britain's borders will remain wide open:
"Despite our change in boss, when it comes to controlling Britain’s borders nothing will change. I know this because I have worked for some time as a civil servant on immigration policy, and – in my experience – no priority is further from the Home Office in 2023 than stopping the boats or cutting net migration."
Even the most moderate attempts to do anything about migration are met internally as either unreasonable or not legally possible, with discussion being stopped dead by allusion to “international law”.
Instead of dealing with the national crises facing Britain, including record legal and illegal migration, endless time is wasted. Senior staff hold events on Black History Month, Windrush and microaggressions. We are told to attend quarterly “away days” (held online usually, most of us are in the office just one day a week) where we are given prizes and are told by senior civil servants just how wrong any political or press criticism of our work is. In meetings nominally discussing policy, we are forced to listen to HR Directors give lectures on diversity and hand out awards about inclusivity. We are patronised and treated like children.
The mood is of self-congratulation and there is a refusal to engage let alone learn from the criticism the department receives, unless of course it comes from the Left or from an incredibly expensive commission finding that we are institutionally racist. There is no self-reflection on the fact we have completely failed to fulfil our democratic duty to reduce migration.
When the Rwanda scheme seemed a millimetre closer to happening, staff message boards were filled with comments vowing they will not work on such an evil project. Senior staff always mollify these messages and tell staff not to resign. Everyone knows that the clock is running down on the current Government and nothing really needs to be done; policies cannot be enacted as they need governance, and the governance needs terms of reference and the terms of reference need to be redrafted and then circulated a few more times before we can hold the first meeting. Many relatively senior officials spend their time dealing with this work, toiling away at things that will never be read or used in an endless round of busywork.
In spite of all this it wouldn’t matter if the Home Office was a finely oiled machine ready and eager to deliver on every possible government priority and determined to protect the UK’s borders. The clear messaging behind closed doors from the Treasury and other departments is that legal migration should be expanded to boost lacklustre economic growth.
For my colleagues, I suspect James Cleverly’s ascension is merely an opportunity to run rings around an inexperienced minister in a new department. And for Britain, our borders will remain uncontrolled."
Someone needs to go through this like a dose of salts.
Absolutely they do.
How did we get in this state? That tweet should be investigated including:
1) which senior staff are holding the events he mentions in second paragraph? Name them and demote them. 2) Ditto the HR managers - what is this culture they are fostering and how are they getting away with it? Institutionally racist? Where is their pride in their country and devotion to duty - if they lack it get out of the civil service. 3) Most in office just one day a week. WTF. Needs examining - if this is a post-Covid thing than that is appalling. If it is pre-Covid re-evaluate this.
Boils my piss.
What's needed in the first instance is a Civil Service bill, giving Ministers back: -Control and greater flexibility to hire, fire, promote and demote civil servants -More public reporting and accountability of civil servants and quangocrats -Control over civil service honours and gongs -Sign off on all civil service training programmes and budgets Because at the moment, elected Governments don't even have the power to implement their programmes - Government carries on largely untroubled by the annoying people occupying Parliament and No. 10.
Sunak proved again that, for all the respectable vibes he emits, at root he’s not a moderate he’s a reactionary. His wilful misinterpretation of the ruling in his speech is straight out of MAGA. Notably less inflammatory language from the actual Home Secretary today
If Sunak really wanted to stop the boats, he would have strengthened the Illegal Migration Bill in the way Suella urged him to. He's not exercised by boats, he'll just say anything to try to keep his premierhsip afloat (hehehe) at this point. Why? Pass. Feels like sheer awkwardness at this stage. I don't think he's trying to win the next GE.
He's clearly got a big bet on his exit date being 2024
Sunak proved again that, for all the respectable vibes he emits, at root he’s not a moderate he’s a reactionary. His wilful misinterpretation of the ruling in his speech is straight out of MAGA. Notably less inflammatory language from the actual Home Secretary today
You thought that was authentic rather than trying to play to the gallery? Takes all sorts I suppose.
He is, to coin a phrase, intensely relaxed about playing to that particular gallery. He’s a fellow traveller.
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
Why do people keep saying this? Did none of you watch the statement from Cleverly? Did Sunak ignore all the stuff about the treaty with Rwanda?
I am 100% against the Government’s policy (not least because I think we should be actively recruiting immigrants industrious enough to get here via those boast) but I don’t feel the need to misrepresent it.
They are saying they will work with Rwanda to change the facts on the ground, as well as make any legislative changes here to accommodate that. That isn’t “declaring Rwanda safe”.
These critics need to have the courage to actually argue in favour of less restricted immigration - that’s the argument we need to win. Not this procedural “hohoho the Gvt looks silly” bollocks. We need to chance the public’s mind.
It's so funny that Sunak's attempt to portray the party as moderate and sensible by sacking Braverman and appointing Cameron has shattered into tiny pieces after just two days.
Funny, and a relief. He might just have been able to pull the wool over enough floating voters’ eyes to neuter the Lib Dems. For a while at least. No chance of that now. The great reset lasted one day.
My poll predictions: a few with fieldwork on Monday and Tuesday will look healthier for them than the people polling one and might even show them up a point or two. Those with fieldwork today onwards will show them dropping again, to worse than before the reshuffle.
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
Yes. The suggestion that it is easy to pass legislation which either ousts the jurisdiction of the courts, or tells a court in advance what they must find by way of fact on the evidence, is untrue.
Neither parliament nor government is the interpreter of legislation; and each piece of legislation has to be read in the light of the law as a whole, as well as enforceable international obligations and the tradition of precedent. Only courts can do this and there is no shortage of people who will give it a go.
"Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton 💥Anonymous Home Office official explains why no matter who is Home Secretary, Britain's borders will remain wide open:
"Despite our change in boss, when it comes to controlling Britain’s borders nothing will change. I know this because I have worked for some time as a civil servant on immigration policy, and – in my experience – no priority is further from the Home Office in 2023 than stopping the boats or cutting net migration."
Even the most moderate attempts to do anything about migration are met internally as either unreasonable or not legally possible, with discussion being stopped dead by allusion to “international law”.
Instead of dealing with the national crises facing Britain, including record legal and illegal migration, endless time is wasted. Senior staff hold events on Black History Month, Windrush and microaggressions. We are told to attend quarterly “away days” (held online usually, most of us are in the office just one day a week) where we are given prizes and are told by senior civil servants just how wrong any political or press criticism of our work is. In meetings nominally discussing policy, we are forced to listen to HR Directors give lectures on diversity and hand out awards about inclusivity. We are patronised and treated like children.
The mood is of self-congratulation and there is a refusal to engage let alone learn from the criticism the department receives, unless of course it comes from the Left or from an incredibly expensive commission finding that we are institutionally racist. There is no self-reflection on the fact we have completely failed to fulfil our democratic duty to reduce migration.
When the Rwanda scheme seemed a millimetre closer to happening, staff message boards were filled with comments vowing they will not work on such an evil project. Senior staff always mollify these messages and tell staff not to resign. Everyone knows that the clock is running down on the current Government and nothing really needs to be done; policies cannot be enacted as they need governance, and the governance needs terms of reference and the terms of reference need to be redrafted and then circulated a few more times before we can hold the first meeting. Many relatively senior officials spend their time dealing with this work, toiling away at things that will never be read or used in an endless round of busywork.
In spite of all this it wouldn’t matter if the Home Office was a finely oiled machine ready and eager to deliver on every possible government priority and determined to protect the UK’s borders. The clear messaging behind closed doors from the Treasury and other departments is that legal migration should be expanded to boost lacklustre economic growth.
For my colleagues, I suspect James Cleverly’s ascension is merely an opportunity to run rings around an inexperienced minister in a new department. And for Britain, our borders will remain uncontrolled."
Someone needs to go through this like a dose of salts.
Absolutely they do.
How did we get in this state? That tweet should be investigated including:
1) which senior staff are holding the events he mentions in second paragraph? Name them and demote them. 2) Ditto the HR managers - what is this culture they are fostering and how are they getting away with it? Institutionally racist? Where is their pride in their country and devotion to duty - if they lack it get out of the civil service. 3) Most in office just one day a week. WTF. Needs examining - if this is a post-Covid thing than that is appalling. If it is pre-Covid re-evaluate this.
Boils my piss.
What's needed in the first instance is a Civil Service bill, giving Ministers back: -Control and greater flexibility to hire, fire, promote and demote civil servants -More public reporting and accountability of civil servants and quangocrats -Control over civil service honours and gongs -Sign off on all civil service training programmes and budgets Because at the moment, elected Governments don't even have the power to implement their programmes - Government carries on largely untroubled by the annoying people occupying Parliament and No. 10.
Very well said.
Or alternatively we could go back to political leaders and parties who showed the slightest interest in what was both lawful and possible.....
"Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton 💥Anonymous Home Office official explains why no matter who is Home Secretary, Britain's borders will remain wide open:
"Despite our change in boss, when it comes to controlling Britain’s borders nothing will change. I know this because I have worked for some time as a civil servant on immigration policy, and – in my experience – no priority is further from the Home Office in 2023 than stopping the boats or cutting net migration."
Even the most moderate attempts to do anything about migration are met internally as either unreasonable or not legally possible, with discussion being stopped dead by allusion to “international law”.
Instead of dealing with the national crises facing Britain, including record legal and illegal migration, endless time is wasted. Senior staff hold events on Black History Month, Windrush and microaggressions. We are told to attend quarterly “away days” (held online usually, most of us are in the office just one day a week) where we are given prizes and are told by senior civil servants just how wrong any political or press criticism of our work is. In meetings nominally discussing policy, we are forced to listen to HR Directors give lectures on diversity and hand out awards about inclusivity. We are patronised and treated like children.
The mood is of self-congratulation and there is a refusal to engage let alone learn from the criticism the department receives, unless of course it comes from the Left or from an incredibly expensive commission finding that we are institutionally racist. There is no self-reflection on the fact we have completely failed to fulfil our democratic duty to reduce migration.
When the Rwanda scheme seemed a millimetre closer to happening, staff message boards were filled with comments vowing they will not work on such an evil project. Senior staff always mollify these messages and tell staff not to resign. Everyone knows that the clock is running down on the current Government and nothing really needs to be done; policies cannot be enacted as they need governance, and the governance needs terms of reference and the terms of reference need to be redrafted and then circulated a few more times before we can hold the first meeting. Many relatively senior officials spend their time dealing with this work, toiling away at things that will never be read or used in an endless round of busywork.
In spite of all this it wouldn’t matter if the Home Office was a finely oiled machine ready and eager to deliver on every possible government priority and determined to protect the UK’s borders. The clear messaging behind closed doors from the Treasury and other departments is that legal migration should be expanded to boost lacklustre economic growth.
For my colleagues, I suspect James Cleverly’s ascension is merely an opportunity to run rings around an inexperienced minister in a new department. And for Britain, our borders will remain uncontrolled."
Someone needs to go through this like a dose of salts.
Absolutely they do.
How did we get in this state? That tweet should be investigated including:
1) which senior staff are holding the events he mentions in second paragraph? Name them and demote them. 2) Ditto the HR managers - what is this culture they are fostering and how are they getting away with it? Institutionally racist? Where is their pride in their country and devotion to duty - if they lack it get out of the civil service. 3) Most in office just one day a week. WTF. Needs examining - if this is a post-Covid thing than that is appalling. If it is pre-Covid re-evaluate this.
Boils my piss.
What's needed in the first instance is a Civil Service bill, giving Ministers back: -Control and greater flexibility to hire, fire, promote and demote civil servants -More public reporting and accountability of civil servants and quangocrats -Control over civil service honours and gongs -Sign off on all civil service training programmes and budgets Because at the moment, elected Governments don't even have the power to implement their programmes - Government carries on largely untroubled by the annoying people occupying Parliament and No. 10.
The Goverment can already do (and does already do) all of those things.
You’ve been reading Guido and the Mail, haven’t you?
From many previous threads: Jason Willick points out something well-known, but unwelcome on much of the American left: 'But Hamas does use civilians as shields, and it is crucial to understand that fact. As a Nov. 5 Post editorial observed, the group “has consciously exposed noncombatants to danger by provoking Israel militarily — while protecting its own leaders and fighters in tunnels.” In 2014, The Post reported that al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, now the site of Israeli-Hamas fighting, “has become a de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices.” . . . This war tactic poses agonizing moral dilemmas for anyone concerned about protecting civilian lives. But Hamas itself makes no bones about how it fights Israel. One official of the terrorist group, Moussa Abu Marzook, recently stressed that Gaza’s tunnel network is for protecting Hamas fighters and declared the United Nations responsible for protecting Gazan civilians.' (Links omitted.) source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/hamas-human-shields-tactic/
Those who care about Gazan civilians should urge Hamas to release all the hostages -- and surrender.
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
Why do people keep saying this? Did none of you watch the statement from Cleverly? Did Sunak ignore all the stuff about the treaty with Rwanda?
I am 100% against the Government’s policy (not least because I think we should be actively recruiting immigrants industrious enough to get here via those boast) but I don’t feel the need to misrepresent it.
They are saying they will work with Rwanda to change the facts on the ground, as well as make any legislative changes here to accommodate that. That isn’t “declaring Rwanda safe”.
These critics need to have the courage to actually argue in favour of less restricted immigration - that’s the argument we need to win. Not this procedural “hohoho the Gvt looks silly” bollocks. We need to chance the public’s mind.
Do you not think that Sunak's crap about "a foreign court" blocking this nonsense is about the biggest lie we've heard in recent British politics?
Even bigger than the lies he spouted about environmental policy, just three or four clueless gimmicks ago?
Sunak proved again that, for all the respectable vibes he emits, at root he’s not a moderate he’s a reactionary. His wilful misinterpretation of the ruling in his speech is straight out of MAGA. Notably less inflammatory language from the actual Home Secretary today
If Sunak really wanted to stop the boats, he would have strengthened the Illegal Migration Bill in the way Suella urged him to. He's not exercised by boats, he'll just say anything to try to keep his premierhsip afloat (hehehe) at this point. Why? Pass. Feels like sheer awkwardness at this stage. I don't think he's trying to win the next GE.
I actually agree with you he doesn’t particularly care about stopping the boats.
That’s not because he’s a secret wet, it’s because he’s incurious and incompetent. He’s shown zero interest in the humanitarian context. No indication that the boats even contain humans. But a great relish in creating wedge issues with which to try to trap the opposition.
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
Why do people keep saying this? Did none of you watch the statement from Cleverly? Did Sunak ignore all the stuff about the treaty with Rwanda?
I am 100% against the Government’s policy (not least because I think we should be actively recruiting immigrants industrious enough to get here via those boast) but I don’t feel the need to misrepresent it.
They are saying they will work with Rwanda to change the facts on the ground, as well as make any legislative changes here to accommodate that. That isn’t “declaring Rwanda safe”.
These critics need to have the courage to actually argue in favour of less restricted immigration - that’s the argument we need to win. Not this procedural “hohoho the Gvt looks silly” bollocks. We need to chance the public’s mind.
Do you not think that Sunak's crap about "a foreign court" blocking this nonsense is about the biggest lie we've heard in recent British politics?
Even bigger than the lies he spouted about environmental policy, just three or four clueless gimmicks ago?
Yes, but that’s not the real argument. The problem is that the country wants this stuff. If you oppose like I do, you should want to basic argument on immigration won, not this trivia, or in the end something will break and the public will gets its way. See Brexit as an example.
You can't just go around pointing at countries and yelling 'Safe!'
This is their cunning plan...
Do you think Rwanda is a safe country for the 13 million people living there?
The specific risk the courts have said applies to asylum applicants sent to Rwanda is of refoulement - that is return to an unsafe country of origin where they face persecution. Citizens of Rwanda, by definition, are not subject to that risk whilst in Rwanda as Rwanda is their country of origin and is where they already are.
Whether or not Rwanda is an alright place to live is something I do not know and isn't relevant to the matter at hand.
AIUI Rwanda would become "safe" for processing illegal immigrants to the UK because of an imminent treaty which the government has been working on which ensures that.
The Sunak announcement is just another very obvious can kicking exercise. The Tory right are, however, probably dumb enough to buy it.
Also he can't pass legislation. Parliament passes legislation. And the Lords could choose to block this.
I suspect the Lords blocking it and then putting it in the manifesto is the best outcome for them now. Otherwise it will just get blocked by the courts again.
If the government is able to legislate to prevent the courts finding its actions unlawful, then we de facto no longer have an independent judiciary. So, it's a lot more serious than can kicking.
The government is, fundamentally, allowed to do just that. We have parliamentary sovereignty. The courts are essentially subservient to what Parliament decides.
However, the courts are able to say when the actions of government and statute conflict with pre-existing law, treaty, and precedent which is essentially what they have done here.
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
Why do people keep saying this? Did none of you watch the statement from Cleverly? Did Sunak ignore all the stuff about the treaty with Rwanda?
I am 100% against the Government’s policy (not least because I think we should be actively recruiting immigrants industrious enough to get here via those boast) but I don’t feel the need to misrepresent it.
They are saying they will work with Rwanda to change the facts on the ground, as well as make any legislative changes here to accommodate that. That isn’t “declaring Rwanda safe”.
These critics need to have the courage to actually argue in favour of less restricted immigration - that’s the argument we need to win. Not this procedural “hohoho the Gvt looks silly” bollocks. We need to chance the public’s mind.
While I agree with much of what you say, I don't quite agree with your interpretation of Sunak's proposed emergency legislation in response to the SC judgement. In the short time hinted by Sunak, how can the UK parliament be convinced that Rwanda has suddenly become a safe country?
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
Why do people keep saying this? Did none of you watch the statement from Cleverly? Did Sunak ignore all the stuff about the treaty with Rwanda?
I am 100% against the Government’s policy (not least because I think we should be actively recruiting immigrants industrious enough to get here via those boast) but I don’t feel the need to misrepresent it.
They are saying they will work with Rwanda to change the facts on the ground, as well as make any legislative changes here to accommodate that. That isn’t “declaring Rwanda safe”.
These critics need to have the courage to actually argue in favour of less restricted immigration - that’s the argument we need to win. Not this procedural “hohoho the Gvt looks silly” bollocks. We need to chance the public’s mind.
Do you not think that Sunak's crap about "a foreign court" blocking this nonsense is about the biggest lie we've heard in recent British politics?
Even bigger than the lies he spouted about environmental policy, just three or four clueless gimmicks ago?
Yes, but that’s not the real argument. The problem is that the country wants this stuff. If you oppose like I do, you should want to basic argument on immigration won, not this trivia, or in the end something will break and the public will gets its way. See Brexit as an example.
You think it's trivial that the prime minister is addicted to telling stupid, transparent lies that a child could see through?
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
Sunak has this arse about face.
Clearly what he needs to do is get parliament to vote the UK an unsafe country where asylum seekers cannot possibly be settled. Job done
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
Why do people keep saying this? Did none of you watch the statement from Cleverly? Did Sunak ignore all the stuff about the treaty with Rwanda?
I am 100% against the Government’s policy (not least because I think we should be actively recruiting immigrants industrious enough to get here via those boast) but I don’t feel the need to misrepresent it.
They are saying they will work with Rwanda to change the facts on the ground, as well as make any legislative changes here to accommodate that. That isn’t “declaring Rwanda safe”.
These critics need to have the courage to actually argue in favour of less restricted immigration - that’s the argument we need to win. Not this procedural “hohoho the Gvt looks silly” bollocks. We need to chance the public’s mind.
While I agree with much of what you say, I don't quite agree with your interpretation of Sunak's proposed emergency legislation in response to the SC judgement. In the short time hinted by Sunak, how can the UK parliament be convinced that Rwanda has suddenly become a safe country?
Again I should caveat this by saying I disagree with the whole thing, but I think the point is that he says he will agree a treaty with Rwanda (presumably creating institutions and safeguards) that provides the guarantee.
If I squint I half see it being workable and lawful. It’s just a total waste of money when we could just embrace anyone who isn’t a terrorist and grow the country with them.
"Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton 💥Anonymous Home Office official explains why no matter who is Home Secretary, Britain's borders will remain wide open:
"Despite our change in boss, when it comes to controlling Britain’s borders nothing will change. I know this because I have worked for some time as a civil servant on immigration policy, and – in my experience – no priority is further from the Home Office in 2023 than stopping the boats or cutting net migration."
Even the most moderate attempts to do anything about migration are met internally as either unreasonable or not legally possible, with discussion being stopped dead by allusion to “international law”.
Instead of dealing with the national crises facing Britain, including record legal and illegal migration, endless time is wasted. Senior staff hold events on Black History Month, Windrush and microaggressions. We are told to attend quarterly “away days” (held online usually, most of us are in the office just one day a week) where we are given prizes and are told by senior civil servants just how wrong any political or press criticism of our work is. In meetings nominally discussing policy, we are forced to listen to HR Directors give lectures on diversity and hand out awards about inclusivity. We are patronised and treated like children.
The mood is of self-congratulation and there is a refusal to engage let alone learn from the criticism the department receives, unless of course it comes from the Left or from an incredibly expensive commission finding that we are institutionally racist. There is no self-reflection on the fact we have completely failed to fulfil our democratic duty to reduce migration.
When the Rwanda scheme seemed a millimetre closer to happening, staff message boards were filled with comments vowing they will not work on such an evil project. Senior staff always mollify these messages and tell staff not to resign. Everyone knows that the clock is running down on the current Government and nothing really needs to be done; policies cannot be enacted as they need governance, and the governance needs terms of reference and the terms of reference need to be redrafted and then circulated a few more times before we can hold the first meeting. Many relatively senior officials spend their time dealing with this work, toiling away at things that will never be read or used in an endless round of busywork.
In spite of all this it wouldn’t matter if the Home Office was a finely oiled machine ready and eager to deliver on every possible government priority and determined to protect the UK’s borders. The clear messaging behind closed doors from the Treasury and other departments is that legal migration should be expanded to boost lacklustre economic growth.
For my colleagues, I suspect James Cleverly’s ascension is merely an opportunity to run rings around an inexperienced minister in a new department. And for Britain, our borders will remain uncontrolled."
Someone needs to go through this like a dose of salts.
Absolutely they do.
How did we get in this state? That tweet should be investigated including:
1) which senior staff are holding the events he mentions in second paragraph? Name them and demote them. 2) Ditto the HR managers - what is this culture they are fostering and how are they getting away with it? Institutionally racist? Where is their pride in their country and devotion to duty - if they lack it get out of the civil service. 3) Most in office just one day a week. WTF. Needs examining - if this is a post-Covid thing than that is appalling. If it is pre-Covid re-evaluate this.
Boils my piss.
What's needed in the first instance is a Civil Service bill, giving Ministers back: -Control and greater flexibility to hire, fire, promote and demote civil servants -More public reporting and accountability of civil servants and quangocrats -Control over civil service honours and gongs -Sign off on all civil service training programmes and budgets Because at the moment, elected Governments don't even have the power to implement their programmes - Government carries on largely untroubled by the annoying people occupying Parliament and No. 10.
Very well said.
Or alternatively we could go back to political leaders and parties who showed the slightest interest in what was both lawful and possible.....
Yes there are enough lackeys around senior politicians. We don't want the Civil Service to become another one.
The Sunak announcement is just another very obvious can kicking exercise. The Tory right are, however, probably dumb enough to buy it.
Also he can't pass legislation. Parliament passes legislation. And the Lords could choose to block this.
I suspect the Lords blocking it and then putting it in the manifesto is the best outcome for them now. Otherwise it will just get blocked by the courts again.
If the government is able to legislate to prevent the courts finding its actions unlawful, then we de facto no longer have an independent judiciary. So, it's a lot more serious than can kicking.
The government is, fundamentally, allowed to do just that. We have parliamentary sovereignty. The courts are essentially subservient to what Parliament decides.
However, the courts are able to say when the actions of government and statute conflict with pre-existing law, treaty, and precedent which is essentially what they have done here.
Without getting all separation-of-powers about this, and despite the plethora of recent Henry VIII powers, it is still parliament, not the government, which retains that sovereignty.
The biggest ouster of them all relates to actions in parliament itself, and is well over 300 years old.
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
Sunak has this arse about face.
Clearly what he needs to do is get parliament to vote the UK an unsafe country where asylum seekers cannot possibly be settled. Job done
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
Sunak has this arse about face.
Clearly what he needs to do is get parliament to vote the UK an unsafe country where asylum seekers cannot possibly be settled. Job done
The Sunak announcement is just another very obvious can kicking exercise. The Tory right are, however, probably dumb enough to buy it.
Also he can't pass legislation. Parliament passes legislation. And the Lords could choose to block this.
I suspect the Lords blocking it and then putting it in the manifesto is the best outcome for them now. Otherwise it will just get blocked by the courts again.
If the government is able to legislate to prevent the courts finding its actions unlawful, then we de facto no longer have an independent judiciary. So, it's a lot more serious than can kicking.
The government is, fundamentally, allowed to do just that. We have parliamentary sovereignty. The courts are essentially subservient to what Parliament decides.
However, the courts are able to say when the actions of government and statute conflict with pre-existing law, treaty, and precedent which is essentially what they have done here.
The pedantic point is the Government is not Parliament.
The more significant point is that Parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament can make rules. It cannot make facts. If it says two plus two is five, it isn't. This is a really basic legal point, and is the reason Sunak's stated plan to legislate simply to declare Rwanda is safe is utterly unviable, and dead on arrival in any court.
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
Sunak has this arse about face.
Clearly what he needs to do is get parliament to vote the UK an unsafe country where asylum seekers cannot possibly be settled. Job done
Bur seriously, that *is* the strategy. The boat people are to be put off because it will be patently unsafe for them to come here
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
Why do people keep saying this? Did none of you watch the statement from Cleverly? Did Sunak ignore all the stuff about the treaty with Rwanda?
I am 100% against the Government’s policy (not least because I think we should be actively recruiting immigrants industrious enough to get here via those boast) but I don’t feel the need to misrepresent it.
They are saying they will work with Rwanda to change the facts on the ground, as well as make any legislative changes here to accommodate that. That isn’t “declaring Rwanda safe”.
These critics need to have the courage to actually argue in favour of less restricted immigration - that’s the argument we need to win. Not this procedural “hohoho the Gvt looks silly” bollocks. We need to chance the public’s mind.
Do you not think that Sunak's crap about "a foreign court" blocking this nonsense is about the biggest lie we've heard in recent British politics?
Even bigger than the lies he spouted about environmental policy, just three or four clueless gimmicks ago?
Yes, but that’s not the real argument. The problem is that the country wants this stuff. If you oppose like I do, you should want to basic argument on immigration won, not this trivia, or in the end something will break and the public will gets its way. See Brexit as an example.
You think it's trivial that the prime minister is addicted to telling stupid, transparent lies that a child could see through?
Compared to the much bigger task of changing the public’s view on immigration? Yes.
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
Why do people keep saying this? Did none of you watch the statement from Cleverly? Did Sunak ignore all the stuff about the treaty with Rwanda?
I am 100% against the Government’s policy (not least because I think we should be actively recruiting immigrants industrious enough to get here via those boast) but I don’t feel the need to misrepresent it.
They are saying they will work with Rwanda to change the facts on the ground, as well as make any legislative changes here to accommodate that. That isn’t “declaring Rwanda safe”.
These critics need to have the courage to actually argue in favour of less restricted immigration - that’s the argument we need to win. Not this procedural “hohoho the Gvt looks silly” bollocks. We need to chance the public’s mind.
Do you not think that Sunak's crap about "a foreign court" blocking this nonsense is about the biggest lie we've heard in recent British politics?
Even bigger than the lies he spouted about environmental policy, just three or four clueless gimmicks ago?
Yes, but that’s not the real argument. The problem is that the country wants this stuff. If you oppose like I do, you should want to basic argument on immigration won, not this trivia, or in the end something will break and the public will gets its way. See Brexit as an example.
There is an easy way to make the Rwanda policy legal (it still wont work and will be ridiculously expensive). Leave the ECHR. The govt will not vote for it and their are not the votes in the Commons for it anyway.
What the country wants is not really to do with where claims are processed at all. They want capped and limited asylum claims, and lower migration generally. The first is incompatible with our lawful treaty obligations (which we can leave if we must) and the second incompatible with our demographics.
"Steven Edginton @StevenEdginton 💥Anonymous Home Office official explains why no matter who is Home Secretary, Britain's borders will remain wide open:
"Despite our change in boss, when it comes to controlling Britain’s borders nothing will change. I know this because I have worked for some time as a civil servant on immigration policy, and – in my experience – no priority is further from the Home Office in 2023 than stopping the boats or cutting net migration."
Even the most moderate attempts to do anything about migration are met internally as either unreasonable or not legally possible, with discussion being stopped dead by allusion to “international law”.
Instead of dealing with the national crises facing Britain, including record legal and illegal migration, endless time is wasted. Senior staff hold events on Black History Month, Windrush and microaggressions. We are told to attend quarterly “away days” (held online usually, most of us are in the office just one day a week) where we are given prizes and are told by senior civil servants just how wrong any political or press criticism of our work is. In meetings nominally discussing policy, we are forced to listen to HR Directors give lectures on diversity and hand out awards about inclusivity. We are patronised and treated like children.
The mood is of self-congratulation and there is a refusal to engage let alone learn from the criticism the department receives, unless of course it comes from the Left or from an incredibly expensive commission finding that we are institutionally racist. There is no self-reflection on the fact we have completely failed to fulfil our democratic duty to reduce migration.
When the Rwanda scheme seemed a millimetre closer to happening, staff message boards were filled with comments vowing they will not work on such an evil project. Senior staff always mollify these messages and tell staff not to resign. Everyone knows that the clock is running down on the current Government and nothing really needs to be done; policies cannot be enacted as they need governance, and the governance needs terms of reference and the terms of reference need to be redrafted and then circulated a few more times before we can hold the first meeting. Many relatively senior officials spend their time dealing with this work, toiling away at things that will never be read or used in an endless round of busywork.
In spite of all this it wouldn’t matter if the Home Office was a finely oiled machine ready and eager to deliver on every possible government priority and determined to protect the UK’s borders. The clear messaging behind closed doors from the Treasury and other departments is that legal migration should be expanded to boost lacklustre economic growth.
For my colleagues, I suspect James Cleverly’s ascension is merely an opportunity to run rings around an inexperienced minister in a new department. And for Britain, our borders will remain uncontrolled."
Someone needs to go through this like a dose of salts.
Absolutely they do.
How did we get in this state? That tweet should be investigated including:
1) which senior staff are holding the events he mentions in second paragraph? Name them and demote them. 2) Ditto the HR managers - what is this culture they are fostering and how are they getting away with it? Institutionally racist? Where is their pride in their country and devotion to duty - if they lack it get out of the civil service. 3) Most in office just one day a week. WTF. Needs examining - if this is a post-Covid thing than that is appalling. If it is pre-Covid re-evaluate this.
Boils my piss.
What's needed in the first instance is a Civil Service bill, giving Ministers back: -Control and greater flexibility to hire, fire, promote and demote civil servants -More public reporting and accountability of civil servants and quangocrats -Control over civil service honours and gongs -Sign off on all civil service training programmes and budgets Because at the moment, elected Governments don't even have the power to implement their programmes - Government carries on largely untroubled by the annoying people occupying Parliament and No. 10.
Very well said.
Not really. It's just blaming the civil service for ministers being hopeless at their jobs.
So what *was* David Cameron's greatest Foreign Policy achievement?
David Cameron hosted one of the most successful G8 summits of recent times.
He got us out of the EU, and I’ll always be grateful.
TBH I'm struggling to think of one.
I think the most strategic was perhaps the commitment maintained to 0.7% of GDP in overseas aid, especially in how that has lead other countries to follow.
And perhaps international promotion of UK education.
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
Why do people keep saying this? Did none of you watch the statement from Cleverly? Did Sunak ignore all the stuff about the treaty with Rwanda?
I am 100% against the Government’s policy (not least because I think we should be actively recruiting immigrants industrious enough to get here via those boast) but I don’t feel the need to misrepresent it.
They are saying they will work with Rwanda to change the facts on the ground, as well as make any legislative changes here to accommodate that. That isn’t “declaring Rwanda safe”.
These critics need to have the courage to actually argue in favour of less restricted immigration - that’s the argument we need to win. Not this procedural “hohoho the Gvt looks silly” bollocks. We need to chance the public’s mind.
Do you not think that Sunak's crap about "a foreign court" blocking this nonsense is about the biggest lie we've heard in recent British politics?
Even bigger than the lies he spouted about environmental policy, just three or four clueless gimmicks ago?
Yes, but that’s not the real argument. The problem is that the country wants this stuff. If you oppose like I do, you should want to basic argument on immigration won, not this trivia, or in the end something will break and the public will gets its way. See Brexit as an example.
There is an easy way to make the Rwanda policy legal (it still wont work and will be ridiculously expensive). Leave the ECHR. The govt will not vote for it and their are not the votes in the Commons for it anyway.
What the country wants is not really to do with where claims are processed at all. They want capped and limited asylum claims, and lower migration generally. The first is incompatible with our lawful treaty obligations (which we can leave if we must) and the second incompatible with our demographics.
Both silly and immoral, yes. But no one in the opposition seems to want to make that case. It’s all about process and “isn’t it amusing the government is embarrassed”. Narrow the debate to that, and fail to win the actual argument with the public, and one day soon a Gvt (maybe even a Labour Gvt) will just do it.
Have we done how far Trump has now gone in his language? This 2 days ago: "Vermin"
Marxists etc has been applied by him to Judges, Court Officials etc involved in his prosecutions.
Separately he has laid out his ideas about going after officials he does not like, political opponents and many more using the organs of the State directed using the executive powers of the Presidency.
The Sunak announcement is just another very obvious can kicking exercise. The Tory right are, however, probably dumb enough to buy it.
Also he can't pass legislation. Parliament passes legislation. And the Lords could choose to block this.
I suspect the Lords blocking it and then putting it in the manifesto is the best outcome for them now. Otherwise it will just get blocked by the courts again.
If the government is able to legislate to prevent the courts finding its actions unlawful, then we de facto no longer have an independent judiciary. So, it's a lot more serious than can kicking.
The government is, fundamentally, allowed to do just that. We have parliamentary sovereignty. The courts are essentially subservient to what Parliament decides.
However, the courts are able to say when the actions of government and statute conflict with pre-existing law, treaty, and precedent which is essentially what they have done here.
The pedantic point is the Government is not Parliament.
The more significant point is that Parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament can make rules. It cannot make facts. If it says two plus two is five, it isn't. This is a really basic legal point, and is the reason Sunak's stated plan to legislate simply to declare Rwanda is safe is utterly unviable, and dead on arrival in any court.
Except that isn’t the (whole) stated plan. A treaty with safeguards is silly and expensive but might be doable. The opposition need to actually focus on the real issues here. Focusing on the process along means something like the Rwanda policy will happen inside the next ten years because no one argued against the basic premise that we should “stop the boats”.
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
Well, it's not as though he believes Parliament has the power to make such a thing happen, but he is presumably correct it has the power to declare such a thing, or any of your examples too.
Only with his it would conceivably then actually be able to be followed by action, since unlike them the legal hurdle is the only one remaining. But it's a process trick, so also presumably would lead to plenty more challenging hurdles.
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
Why do people keep saying this? Did none of you watch the statement from Cleverly? Did Sunak ignore all the stuff about the treaty with Rwanda?
I am 100% against the Government’s policy (not least because I think we should be actively recruiting immigrants industrious enough to get here via those boast) but I don’t feel the need to misrepresent it.
They are saying they will work with Rwanda to change the facts on the ground, as well as make any legislative changes here to accommodate that. That isn’t “declaring Rwanda safe”.
These critics need to have the courage to actually argue in favour of less restricted immigration - that’s the argument we need to win. Not this procedural “hohoho the Gvt looks silly” bollocks. We need to chance the public’s mind.
Do you not think that Sunak's crap about "a foreign court" blocking this nonsense is about the biggest lie we've heard in recent British politics?
Even bigger than the lies he spouted about environmental policy, just three or four clueless gimmicks ago?
Yes, but that’s not the real argument. The problem is that the country wants this stuff. If you oppose like I do, you should want to basic argument on immigration won, not this trivia, or in the end something will break and the public will gets its way. See Brexit as an example.
There is an easy way to make the Rwanda policy legal (it still wont work and will be ridiculously expensive). Leave the ECHR. The govt will not vote for it and their are not the votes in the Commons for it anyway.
What the country wants is not really to do with where claims are processed at all. They want capped and limited asylum claims, and lower migration generally. The first is incompatible with our lawful treaty obligations (which we can leave if we must) and the second incompatible with our demographics.
Lower migration generally is perfectly compatible with our demographics. That argument is driven by older people who don't want to pay more for services and see importing workers as a quick fix.
Have we done how far Trump has now gone in his language? This 2 days ago: "Vermin"
Marxists etc has been applied by him to Judges, Court Officials etc involved in his prosecutions.
Separately he has laid out his ideas about going after officials he does not like, political opponents and many more using the organs of the State directed using the executive powers of the Presidency.
The Sunak announcement is just another very obvious can kicking exercise. The Tory right are, however, probably dumb enough to buy it.
Also he can't pass legislation. Parliament passes legislation. And the Lords could choose to block this.
I suspect the Lords blocking it and then putting it in the manifesto is the best outcome for them now. Otherwise it will just get blocked by the courts again.
If the government is able to legislate to prevent the courts finding its actions unlawful, then we de facto no longer have an independent judiciary. So, it's a lot more serious than can kicking.
The government is, fundamentally, allowed to do just that. We have parliamentary sovereignty. The courts are essentially subservient to what Parliament decides.
Of course. Parliament can legislate to say that courts can't look at facts in relation to legislation. But it can't simultaneously claim the facts are on its side with any credibility at all.
And such a Parliament would not be deserving of any respect.
So, Sunak is going to use his majority to pass emergency legislation to declare that Rwanda is a safe country. That is potentially a tremendous power: declare something about a foreign country over which we have no jurisdiction to be the case and it is the case.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
Why do people keep saying this? Did none of you watch the statement from Cleverly? Did Sunak ignore all the stuff about the treaty with Rwanda?
I am 100% against the Government’s policy (not least because I think we should be actively recruiting immigrants industrious enough to get here via those boast) but I don’t feel the need to misrepresent it.
They are saying they will work with Rwanda to change the facts on the ground, as well as make any legislative changes here to accommodate that. That isn’t “declaring Rwanda safe”.
These critics need to have the courage to actually argue in favour of less restricted immigration - that’s the argument we need to win. Not this procedural “hohoho the Gvt looks silly” bollocks. We need to chance the public’s mind.
Do you not think that Sunak's crap about "a foreign court" blocking this nonsense is about the biggest lie we've heard in recent British politics?
Even bigger than the lies he spouted about environmental policy, just three or four clueless gimmicks ago?
Yes, but that’s not the real argument. The problem is that the country wants this stuff. If you oppose like I do, you should want to basic argument on immigration won, not this trivia, or in the end something will break and the public will gets its way. See Brexit as an example.
You think it's trivial that the prime minister is addicted to telling stupid, transparent lies that a child could see through?
Compared to the much bigger task of changing the public’s view on immigration? Yes.
Politics and politicians are just froth.
Your strategy is to give up on politics - treat it as unimportant that politicians are self-seeking, superficial liars - and just aim to change the public's view on the great political issues?
Comments
The fact is the courts found (as a point of fact) a real risk of claims being wrongly determined in Rwanda with individuals returned to unsafe countries of origin.
For the Lee Anderson tendency, the response to that is to say "f*** it - I don't care".
But that isn't Sunak's (stated) position. His position is he disagrees with the factual conclusion on safety of individuals sent to Rwanda. That just isn't a legal point or a matter deriving from "foreign courts" - to clear that hurdle, he needs to demonstrate Rwanda is in fact safe.
I understand his suggestion is Parliament could legislate to simply say it is safe. That just isn't legally tenable - Parliament is sovereign in that it can make rules... it can't make facts. If Parliament says two plus two is five, it simply doesn't make it so. I don't know who the Attorney General is now but no competent one will say that is workable.
This morning's latest addition to the canon is quite something:
https://twitter.com/HenMazzig/status/1724737142868283847
BBC somehow claimed IDF forces were targeting, as opposed to including, "medical teams and Arab speakers".
Still, probably the mockery of UK institutions is only due to Brexit or somesuch, not because they're so demonstrably biased.
You can't just go around pointing at countries and yelling 'Safe!'
This is their cunning plan...
I will never agree with this policy, but I can see that point.
Prohibition is still on the books, but suspended except in rare (at least so far) special circumstances, for example occasional "secret debates" in House of Commons during WW2.
What they don't do is confer them as you said.
Also he can't pass legislation. Parliament passes legislation. And the Lords could choose to block this.
I suspect the Lords blocking it and then putting it in the manifesto is the best outcome for them now. Otherwise it will just get blocked by the courts again.
https://x.com/Samfr/status/1724837608851657176?s=20
So Rishi Sunak's plan is to pass a law that says Rwanda is a safe third country even though the Supreme Court has just ruled that it isn't?
Does the law work like a magic spell?
The politics of this are clear. The mechanics... less so.
PS - so which politico does THAT phrase conjure up?
For a country that got Brexit done, we sure seem to be having a lot of discussions that suggest Brexit didn't get done at all
Prime minister Rishi Sunak ended his press conference on "emergency legislation" this afternoon by saying: "We will stop the boats and getting this policy working is vital to doing that"
There is just no evidence behind that at all
George V demanded a general election before he was willing to commit to creating the peers necessary.
These days, such a course wouldn't be necessary. If an election returned a majority in favour of the policy, the Parliament Act would suffice if the Lords continued to block.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXBc764h5-Q
Course there is another factor here which is that (unlike say my Heathrow example) whatever position these MPs choose to take on Gaza will have no practical impact because it's not a Westminster matter. Therefore you could say it's pure virtue signalling. Otoh that goes for all our MPs and pundits (on this issue) so it's maybe unfair to single anybody out on that score, whichever 'side' they're on.
I don't use cash for most things but there are definitely times when cash is the more convenient so I don't see the point of denying yourself that option.
I still use cash about a dozen times month. Only this morning all the payment machines were down at our regular coffee shop and the staff were telling me that about 90% of their customers had the cash to pay instead so it wasn't a problem for them. The one thing that does intrigue me is that I assume that if a company sends someone to do a job for you at your home that you never tip the workers if they do a good job or go the extra mile. You must be really popular!
Is that how this works? Parliament votes something and then it's true? Because if so, I really feel we haven't been putting this tool to best use.
Sky reporting the conservatives and labour have done a deal over the SNP ceasefire amendment, whereby the conservatives abstain on labour's amendment thereby it passing and the SNP failing
Something that stupid is going to ensure the Tory party compete with the SNP for third party status...
Is that a bit… dodgy?
So what *was* David Cameron's greatest Foreign Policy achievement?
For example: Immigration from India has led, unsurprisingly, to increasing incidents of caste discrimination which, naturally, is leading to calls for laws against it.
That is an entirely different problem from those caused by illiterate farm workers sneaking across the border from Mexico.
From what I have read on this site, I suspect many in the UK are making the same error, grouping far too many separate problems together.
Twas rather good though so we saw it both on Broadway and earlier this year in the West End.
If parliament has such power it could then be fruitfully used, to give a couple of examples off the top of my head, to declare that Russia has no right to be in Ukraine, or that violence on all sides in Gaza should cease.
The replacement doesn't even reach that benchmark
@SamRamani2
BREAKING: Denmark could start to inspect and potentially block Russian oil tankers passing through its waters"
https://twitter.com/SamRamani2/status/1724841778052772136
I am 100% against the Government’s policy (not least because I think we should be actively recruiting immigrants industrious enough to get here via those boast) but I don’t feel the need to misrepresent it.
They are saying they will work with Rwanda to change the facts on the ground, as well as make any legislative changes here to accommodate that. That isn’t “declaring Rwanda safe”.
These critics need to have the courage to actually argue in favour of less restricted immigration - that’s the argument we need to win. Not this procedural “hohoho the Gvt looks silly” bollocks. We need to chance the public’s mind.
3) Good luck getting this passed in the House of Lords. It wasn’t a manifesto commitment. The Government doesn’t have the time to use the Parliament Acts. It can’t simply force it through. (See: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00675/).
My poll predictions: a few with fieldwork on Monday and Tuesday will look healthier for them than the people polling one and might even show them up a point or two. Those with fieldwork today onwards will show them dropping again, to worse than before the reshuffle.
Neither parliament nor government is the interpreter of legislation; and each piece of legislation has to be read in the light of the law as a whole, as well as enforceable international obligations and the tradition of precedent. Only courts can do this and there is no shortage of people who will give it a go.
You’ve been reading Guido and the Mail, haven’t you?
'But Hamas does use civilians as shields, and it is crucial to understand that fact. As a Nov. 5 Post editorial observed, the group “has consciously exposed noncombatants to danger by provoking Israel militarily — while protecting its own leaders and fighters in tunnels.” In 2014, The Post reported that al-Shifa Hospital in Gaza City, now the site of Israeli-Hamas fighting, “has become a de facto headquarters for Hamas leaders, who can be seen in the hallways and offices.”
. . .
This war tactic poses agonizing moral dilemmas for anyone concerned about protecting civilian lives. But Hamas itself makes no bones about how it fights Israel. One official of the terrorist group, Moussa Abu Marzook, recently stressed that Gaza’s tunnel network is for protecting Hamas fighters and declared the United Nations responsible for protecting Gazan civilians.'
(Links omitted.)
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/14/hamas-human-shields-tactic/
Those who care about Gazan civilians should urge Hamas to release all the hostages -- and surrender.
Even bigger than the lies he spouted about environmental policy, just three or four clueless gimmicks ago?
That’s not because he’s a secret wet, it’s because he’s incurious and incompetent. He’s shown zero interest in the humanitarian context. No indication that the boats even contain humans. But a great relish in creating wedge issues with which to try to trap the opposition.
ETA here is the relevant PMQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aY5l7SUj2ZQ&t=1565s
Whether or not Rwanda is an alright place to live is something I do not know and isn't relevant to the matter at hand.
However, the courts are able to say when the actions of government and statute conflict with pre-existing law, treaty, and precedent which is essentially what they have done here.
Clearly what he needs to do is get parliament to vote the UK an unsafe country where asylum seekers cannot possibly be settled. Job done
If I squint I half see it being workable and lawful. It’s just a total waste of money when we could just embrace anyone who isn’t a terrorist and grow the country with them.
The biggest ouster of them all relates to actions in parliament itself, and is well over 300 years old.
The more significant point is that Parliamentary sovereignty means Parliament can make rules. It cannot make facts. If it says two plus two is five, it isn't. This is a really basic legal point, and is the reason Sunak's stated plan to legislate simply to declare Rwanda is safe is utterly unviable, and dead on arrival in any court.
Politics and politicians are just froth.
What the country wants is not really to do with where claims are processed at all. They want capped and limited asylum claims, and lower migration generally. The first is incompatible with our lawful treaty obligations (which we can leave if we must) and the second incompatible with our demographics.
It's just blaming the civil service for ministers being hopeless at their jobs.
I think the most strategic was perhaps the commitment maintained to 0.7% of GDP in overseas aid, especially in how that has lead other countries to follow.
And perhaps international promotion of UK education.
"Vermin"
Marxists etc has been applied by him to Judges, Court Officials etc involved in his prosecutions.
Separately he has laid out his ideas about going after officials he does not like, political opponents and many more using the organs of the State directed using the executive powers of the Presidency.
Only with his it would conceivably then actually be able to be followed by action, since unlike them the legal hurdle is the only one remaining. But it's a process trick, so also presumably would lead to plenty more challenging hurdles.
Parliament can legislate to say that courts can't look at facts in relation to legislation.
But it can't simultaneously claim the facts are on its side with any credibility at all.
And such a Parliament would not be deserving of any respect.
Now that really _is_ magical thinking.