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?
Now that really _is_ magical thinking.
No. That’s isn’t my strategy nor have I said it is. Which words are you having difficulty with?
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.
Coming soon - a manifesto commitment to hold back the tide?
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”.
The Rwanda plan looked bad to me irrespective of whether it was lawful, so knowing if it was lawful was important, but if that were made the main argument against it risks not dealing with the underlying political desire that led to it. Making it lawful will take more time and effort, but can be done.
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.
"So I am also announcing today that we will take the extraordinary step of introducing emergency legislation. This will enable parliament to confirm that, that with our new treaty, Rwanda is safe."
Also in the bill: 'with our new ship design, the Titanic can't sink.'
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?
Now that really _is_ magical thinking.
No. That’s isn’t my strategy nor have I said it is. Which words are you having difficulty with?
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.
Even though I don't agree with it*, I am far less concerned with a government that said look we really want to implement a policy that conflicts with the ECHR so we are leaving it, than one that spends years and billions gaslighting its voters that it is implementing the policy when it knows the courts will repeatedly block it.
One is a policy disagreement, the other damages some of the building blocks of our democracy.
* I would actually support the government if it seriously tried to reform ECHR rules at the global level.
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”.
I agree that they could change the facts by actually making Rwanda safe as a place where asylum applicants sent from the UK are not at risk of refoulement. Maybe they will and, if they do, the ECHR isn't stopping them - the Supreme Court have said in terms that the principle is fine legally (people can argue on the morals but it isn't unlawful).
But what they are chucking out there, and some on here seem to believe for some reason, is they can declare Rwanda safe and that this would have legal force. It wouldn't. It isn't how the law works, and it would be an appalling waste of time and money to pretend otherwise.
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.
Coming soon - a manifesto commitment to hold back the tide?
Missing out the rest of the post kind of misses the intended point that in some cases they can achieve something by declaring something legally to be the case, even if in most cases they cannot. If they make it legally the case Rwanda is safe (with whatever bells and whistles they need to achieve that - guarantees, committments etc), then they can act even if it really is not safe, whereas declaring the tide can be stopped cannot advance any goal that requires it to be stopped.
So it may be a dumb strategy, but I don't think it is as dumb as its being presented as on its face by comparing to tides and the like, because the Rwanda issue is essentially about an opinion or interpretation of another state, not an immutable natural force.
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”.
The Rwanda plan looked bad to me irrespective of whether it was lawful, so knowing if it was lawful was important, but if that were made the main argument against it risks not dealing with the underlying political desire that led to it. Making it lawful will take more time and effort, but can be done.
Precisely. My point exactly. No one is addressing the moral issues with the idea. They are too focused on the mechanism, which in the end will either be made legal or the public will vote for someone who actually doesn’t care and will leave any other treaty in order to make it happen.
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.
Coming soon - a manifesto commitment to hold back the tide?
The arrogance of the Tory right, which might command a majority in Parliament, but which is barely a year away from an election which it's almost certain to lose, insisting that it's a matter of principle that it should redraw the existing relationship between legislature and judiciary, in order to force through a policy which a majority if the electorate opposes, would be breathtaking. Were it not entirely in accord with the way they've behaved for years.
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.
"So I am also announcing today that we will take the extraordinary step of introducing emergency legislation. This will enable parliament to confirm that, that with our new treaty, Rwanda is safe."
Also in the bill: 'with our new ship design, the Titanic can't sink.'
Well, yes, that’s precisely the analogy. The Gvt thinks a treaty with Rwanda (presumably with various institutions created) will make it safe; in the same way that a redesign of the titanic would have made it safe.
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.
Jesus.
Yes probably another Marxist, didnt like money lenders much and kept virtue signalling about feeding the poor.
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.
"So I am also announcing today that we will take the extraordinary step of introducing emergency legislation. This will enable parliament to confirm that, that with our new treaty, Rwanda is safe."
Also in the bill: 'with our new ship design, the Titanic can't sink.'
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.
He's genuinely unhinged, and we know his supporters have proven willing to use both violence and frivolous legal challenges to advance his personal power, so such ranting is not meaningless. Yet everyone is desensitised and it's apparently a bigger deal for most americans that Biden is old, despite Trump being almost as old, and having even more examples of mental confusion.
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?
Now that really _is_ magical thinking.
No. That’s isn’t my strategy nor have I said it is. Which words are you having difficulty with?
"Politics and politicians are just froth."
Which is not saying what you accused me of. Look at my other posts (well I presume you aren’t a stalker and don’t have unlimited time so you won’t). It’s pretty clearly me screaming into the void that politics IS froth but should not be. No politician ever debates the actual issues.
That’s a cry to replace and improve them, not ignore them.
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.
Jesus.
Yes probably another Marxist, didnt like money lenders much and kept virtue signalling about feeding the poor.
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.
Trump flipped his lid when someone finally said "no" to him and he couldn't* do anything about it. The extraordinary thing is how so many people are going along with his revenge mission, into which they're emotionally bought but in truth have no stake. It's an exercise in mass hypnosis.
* Actually, if he wasn't so squeamish about violence, he could have done something. Even a semi-competent plan for Jan 6 would have taken control of Congress and forced a vote in his favour. But that would have meant deaths on his direction.
But we should very much worry about what the United States would look like two years into a second Trump presidency. If he retains control of the Republican Party then the damage he could do could take years to undo, if ever. The damage on global diplomatic infrastructure would be even greater, and undoable.
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.
Coming soon - a manifesto commitment to hold back the tide?
Missing out the rest of the post kind of misses the intended point that in some cases they can achieve something by declaring something legally to be the case, even if in most cases they cannot. If they make it legally the case Rwanda is safe (with whatever bells and whistles they need to achieve that - guarantees, committments etc), then they can act even if it really is not safe, whereas declaring the tide can be stopped cannot advance any goal that requires it to be stopped.
So it may be a dumb strategy, but I don't think it is as dumb as its being presented as on its face by comparing to tides and the like, because the Rwanda issue is essentially about an opinion or interpretation of another state, not an immutable natural force.
But we are actually talking about something real here. Whether people are going to be safe if they are sent to Rwanda. Whether they are killed, beaten, imprisoned or raped is not really an airy-fairy matter of opinion that is going to be changed by a declaration made in Parliament.
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.
Jesus.
Yes probably another Marxist, didnt like money lenders much and kept virtue signalling about feeding the poor.
Yes indeed.
Moore told NPR in an interview released Tuesday that multiple pastors had told him they would quote the Sermon on the Mount, specifically the part that says to “turn the other cheek,” when preaching. Someone would come up after the service and ask, “Where did you get those liberal talking points?”
“What was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, ‘I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ,’ the response would not be, ‘I apologize.’ The response would be, ‘Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak,’” Moore said. “When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.” https://newrepublic.com/post/174950/christianity-today-editor-evangelicals-call-jesus-liberal-weak
Which would be fine, except I'd bet good money many people explicitly rejecting the words of Christ still insist they are very firm Christians.
But then, Christians have been arguing with other Christians as long as there have been Christians.
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.
Jesus.
Yes probably another Marxist, didnt like money lenders much and kept virtue signalling about feeding the poor.
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.
Jesus.
Yes probably another Marxist, didnt like money lenders much and kept virtue signalling about feeding the poor.
The feeding of the 5000:
In fairness that's an appealing feast to me.
Nah, think how cold it will have been by the time is was laid out. He wasn’t thinking outside the box. He could have brought the kitchen to the Whitehouse.
The arrogance of the Tory right, which might command a majority in Parliament, but which is barely a year away from an election which it's almost certain to lose, insisting that it's a matter of principle that it should redraw the existing relationship between legislature and judiciary, in order to force through a policy which a majority if the electorate opposes, would be breathtaking. Were it not entirely in accord with the way they've behaved for years.
I'm going to keep making the point that the government doesn't have a majority in parliament; it only has a majority in the Commons.
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?
Now that really _is_ magical thinking.
No. That’s isn’t my strategy nor have I said it is. Which words are you having difficulty with?
"Politics and politicians are just froth."
Which is not saying what you accused me of. Look at my other posts (well I presume you aren’t a stalker and don’t have unlimited time so you won’t). It’s pretty clearly me screaming into the void that politics IS froth but should not be. No politician ever debates the actual issues.
That’s a cry to replace and improve them, not ignore them.
As you say, I don't have unlimited time.
If you think it's important to change and improve politics you shouldn't come out with such nonsense as saying it's a trivial matter that the prime minister tells such stupid, transparent lies.
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.
Coming soon - a manifesto commitment to hold back the tide?
Missing out the rest of the post kind of misses the intended point that in some cases they can achieve something by declaring something legally to be the case, even if in most cases they cannot. If they make it legally the case Rwanda is safe (with whatever bells and whistles they need to achieve that - guarantees, committments etc), then they can act even if it really is not safe, whereas declaring the tide can be stopped cannot advance any goal that requires it to be stopped.
So it may be a dumb strategy, but I don't think it is as dumb as its being presented as on its face by comparing to tides and the like, because the Rwanda issue is essentially about an opinion or interpretation of another state, not an immutable natural force.
But we are actually talking about something real here. Whether people are going to be safe if they are sent to Rwanda. Whether they are killed, beaten, imprisoned or raped is not really an airy-fairy matter of opinion that is going to be changed by a declaration made in Parliament.
I assume it will take more than just a declaration to make it legal despite their words about it, but as with the question of the Rwanda policy itself I was focusing on the potential legality as separate to the question of the moralities or practicalities of the idea.
Sometimes shitty things and ideas are legal. Could they figure out a way to declare Rwanda safe when it isn't? I feel confident they've managed something like it before, with sending people to places where they will be tortured or the like (that is only a guess about legislative creativity, not a firm example).
Should they declare it safe even if it is not? Of course not.
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.
Yes but. Simplistic politicians seem to think that they can act superficially, without consideration of the foundations upon which they rest.
Parliament is sovereign, yes, but the law engages with the entire history of what parliament has ever done and also the Common law, and the entire edifice of precedents going back, where necessary, hundreds of years.
Parliament is at liberty to amend any of that by legislation of course, which in turn becomes part of the totality of law for courts to consider.
If you compare for one moment, for example, debates in the HoC and the quality of submissions by counsel in the SC, you will find you are on different planets, and playing the game in different leagues.
Parliament on the whole has no idea what it is doing, or what the consequences are. The courts exist to tell them what they have done and to rectify their defects.
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.
Coming soon - a manifesto commitment to hold back the tide?
Missing out the rest of the post kind of misses the intended point that in some cases they can achieve something by declaring something legally to be the case, even if in most cases they cannot. If they make it legally the case Rwanda is safe (with whatever bells and whistles they need to achieve that - guarantees, committments etc), then they can act even if it really is not safe, whereas declaring the tide can be stopped cannot advance any goal that requires it to be stopped.
So it may be a dumb strategy, but I don't think it is as dumb as its being presented as on its face by comparing to tides and the like, because the Rwanda issue is essentially about an opinion or interpretation of another state, not an immutable natural force.
But we are actually talking about something real here. Whether people are going to be safe if they are sent to Rwanda. Whether they are killed, beaten, imprisoned or raped is not really an airy-fairy matter of opinion that is going to be changed by a declaration made in Parliament.
Safety is never absolute. India apparently assassinated someone in Canada recently and Russia has done it here.
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.
Jesus.
Yes probably another Marxist, didnt like money lenders much and kept virtue signalling about feeding the poor.
The feeding of the 5000:
In fairness that's an appealing feast to me.
Nah, think how cold it will have been by the time is was laid out. He wasn’t thinking outside the box. He could have brought the kitchen to the Whitehouse.
Good point, McDonald's food has an appetising half life of about 5 minutes. It's why McDelivery just is not worth it.
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.
Coming soon - a manifesto commitment to hold back the tide?
Missing out the rest of the post kind of misses the intended point that in some cases they can achieve something by declaring something legally to be the case, even if in most cases they cannot. If they make it legally the case Rwanda is safe (with whatever bells and whistles they need to achieve that - guarantees, committments etc), then they can act even if it really is not safe, whereas declaring the tide can be stopped cannot advance any goal that requires it to be stopped.
So it may be a dumb strategy, but I don't think it is as dumb as its being presented as on its face by comparing to tides and the like, because the Rwanda issue is essentially about an opinion or interpretation of another state, not an immutable natural force.
But we are actually talking about something real here. Whether people are going to be safe if they are sent to Rwanda. Whether they are killed, beaten, imprisoned or raped is not really an airy-fairy matter of opinion that is going to be changed by a declaration made in Parliament.
I assume it will take more than just a declaration to make it legal despite their words about it, but as with the question of the Rwanda policy itself I was focusing on the potential legality as separate to the question of the moralities or practicalities of the idea.
Sometimes shitty things and ideas are legal. Could they figure out a way to declare Rwanda safe when it isn't? I feel confident they've managed something like it before, with sending people to places where they will be tortured or the like (that is only a guess about legislative creativity, not a firm example).
Should they declare it safe even if it is not? Of course not.
You can be sure it will be challenged, and that it will take us up to the next election if necessary.
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.
Coming soon - a manifesto commitment to hold back the tide?
Missing out the rest of the post kind of misses the intended point that in some cases they can achieve something by declaring something legally to be the case, even if in most cases they cannot. If they make it legally the case Rwanda is safe (with whatever bells and whistles they need to achieve that - guarantees, committments etc), then they can act even if it really is not safe, whereas declaring the tide can be stopped cannot advance any goal that requires it to be stopped.
So it may be a dumb strategy, but I don't think it is as dumb as its being presented as on its face by comparing to tides and the like, because the Rwanda issue is essentially about an opinion or interpretation of another state, not an immutable natural force.
There is no such thing as making it "legally the case Rwanda is safe" as the safety or otherwise of Rwanda is a factual matter, not a legal one. Legal matters relate to what the rules are that are then applied to facts. But facts are facts and legislation doesn't and can't change that.
I went for a swim today, and found that the leisure centre's chip-and-pin system was not working. As I did not have cash on me, they let me swim for free, as long as I paid double next time I come. They did not debit any account, or take any note of my entry.
I will, of course, mention this on Friday when I next swim. But how many people would not?
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.
always good to have a couple with your wad of notes , for big issue sellers , trolleys , etc.
A lot of talk about opposing Rwanda/unworkable/mad Tories etc
Not hearing anything on a workable migration policy. Who? Ideal numbers gross/net?
That's a political choice. For some time the Tories have had two quite straightforward policies on the matter: they are for it, and they are against it. On the whole that policy is unlikely to commend itself to us.
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.
Coming soon - a manifesto commitment to hold back the tide?
Missing out the rest of the post kind of misses the intended point that in some cases they can achieve something by declaring something legally to be the case, even if in most cases they cannot. If they make it legally the case Rwanda is safe (with whatever bells and whistles they need to achieve that - guarantees, committments etc), then they can act even if it really is not safe, whereas declaring the tide can be stopped cannot advance any goal that requires it to be stopped.
So it may be a dumb strategy, but I don't think it is as dumb as its being presented as on its face by comparing to tides and the like, because the Rwanda issue is essentially about an opinion or interpretation of another state, not an immutable natural force.
But we are actually talking about something real here. Whether people are going to be safe if they are sent to Rwanda. Whether they are killed, beaten, imprisoned or raped is not really an airy-fairy matter of opinion that is going to be changed by a declaration made in Parliament.
I assume it will take more than just a declaration to make it legal despite their words about it, but as with the question of the Rwanda policy itself I was focusing on the potential legality as separate to the question of the moralities or practicalities of the idea.
Sometimes shitty things and ideas are legal. Could they figure out a way to declare Rwanda safe when it isn't? I feel confident they've managed something like it before, with sending people to places where they will be tortured or the like (that is only a guess about legislative creativity, not a firm example).
Should they declare it safe even if it is not? Of course not.
You can be sure it will be challenged, and that it will take us up to the next election if necessary.
Which may be the real plan B.
In the past the government has gotten away with failing on its migration goals by trying to look as though they are doing something, or complaining about being blocked from doing something. They may hope they can repeat that.
Presumably Braverman and others realise they will no longer get away with simply trying and have to do something, and are more willing to take extreme or unlawful action.
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.
always good to have a couple with your wad of notes , for big issue sellers , trolleys , etc.
Boris Johnson doesn't really need your £1, just sayin.
So, Sunak essentially initiates emergency legislation to override UK courts.
Is that a bit… dodgy?
This is very simple.
The Government implemented a policy which has been found to be in contravention of UK law (either directly or through legislation related to the ECHR).
To enable the policy to be legally implemented therefore requires UK law to be changed.
There is nothing dodgy about that.
However, a number of questions do arise principally around the fact that the UK parliament has enacted lots of legislation over the years, and therefore it is quite possible that HMG will be breaking some other law if they attempt to actually deport people.
Fundamentally, though, the problems comes down to the fact that the UK government is trying to do something completely different to every other country in this area: specifically, Australia, Germany, etc., are introducing offshore processing centres. So, while you wait for your asylum claim to be processed, you aren't able to wander out and join the local (informal/illegal) workforce as a day labourer.
We, by contrast, are saying "off you go to Rwanda, where you can claim asylum". Which (a) is severely limited by the number of people Rwanda will take, (b) is open to manipulation by applicants (Rwanda discriminates against homosexuals, for example), and (c) is much more open to individual legal challenge.
I am all in favour of off shore processing centres, as I am of funding our immigration services properly, so we can process claims as quickly as the Dutch. I think the Rwanda policy is stupid headline grabbing that won't actually result in any meaningful reduction in numbers claiming asylum in the UK.
A lot of talk about opposing Rwanda/unworkable/mad Tories etc
Not hearing anything on a workable migration policy. Who? Ideal numbers gross/net?
How many times does this vacuous point have to be rebutted.
Copy Switzerland. Fund the Home Office and Courts to process claims quickly so asylum seekers can work or be deported rather than be paid by us to stay in hotels for years on end. Migration generally, we need a substantial amount, so build more houses and infrastructure.
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.
Jesus.
Yes probably another Marxist, didnt like money lenders much and kept virtue signalling about feeding the poor.
The feeding of the 5000:
In fairness that's an appealing feast to me.
Hopefully you're talking about what's on the table.
A lot of talk about opposing Rwanda/unworkable/mad Tories etc
Not hearing anything on a workable migration policy. Who? Ideal numbers gross/net?
That's easy:
If you want to come to the UK to work, you pay £5,000 for your first year; £4,000 for the second, £3,000 for the third, £2,000 for the fourth and £1,000 for the fifth.
Adjust the numbers upwards if you still find you have too many, or downwards if you're struggling with not enough workers and too many retirees.
No special treatment by occupation and very simple.
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.
Coming soon - a manifesto commitment to hold back the tide?
Missing out the rest of the post kind of misses the intended point that in some cases they can achieve something by declaring something legally to be the case, even if in most cases they cannot. If they make it legally the case Rwanda is safe (with whatever bells and whistles they need to achieve that - guarantees, committments etc), then they can act even if it really is not safe, whereas declaring the tide can be stopped cannot advance any goal that requires it to be stopped.
So it may be a dumb strategy, but I don't think it is as dumb as its being presented as on its face by comparing to tides and the like, because the Rwanda issue is essentially about an opinion or interpretation of another state, not an immutable natural force.
There is no such thing as making it "legally the case Rwanda is safe" as the safety or otherwise of Rwanda is a factual matter, not a legal one. Legal matters relate to what the rules are that are then applied to facts. But facts are facts and legislation doesn't and can't change that.
You say it is a factual matter, yet lawyers have been arguing over what the facts of the matter are, with many arguing it is indeed safe. So the facts are apparently in dispute, as many facts are. The Supreme Court has weighed the evidence and determined the facts as things stand, and thus determined it is unlawful on that basis.
Is it impossible the government can find a way to change the rules to apply to that fact, or which factors and evidence are allowed to be considered when doing so? Sounds pretty hard to me, but by your description you make it sound a lot easier than I thought it would be, since changing rules and laws to apply to the facts sounds like what they are proposing. That's not literally 'declaring Rwanda safe', but can they change the rules to apply adjust the intepretations?
A lot of talk about opposing Rwanda/unworkable/mad Tories etc
Not hearing anything on a workable migration policy. Who? Ideal numbers gross/net?
A good start would be to commit to reaching a returns agreement for asylum seekers with the EU, replacing the one that ended in 2018. Up to that point there were no small boats, because anyone landing would be returned to their country of origin whether they claimed asylum or not.
The EU would no doubt want something in return. £140m might do it though, that is the amount that has just been wasted on what was always going to be no more than a gimmick with Rwanda.
A lot of talk about opposing Rwanda/unworkable/mad Tories etc
Not hearing anything on a workable migration policy. Who? Ideal numbers gross/net?
How many times does this vacuous point have to be rebutted.
Copy Switzerland. Fund the Home Office and Courts to process claims quickly so asylum seekers can work or be deported rather than be paid by us to stay in hotels for years on end. Migration generally, we need a substantial amount, so build more houses and infrastructure.
Switzerland Norway have both done very well in their own ways.
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?
Now that really _is_ magical thinking.
No. That’s isn’t my strategy nor have I said it is. Which words are you having difficulty with?
"Politics and politicians are just froth."
Which is not saying what you accused me of. Look at my other posts (well I presume you aren’t a stalker and don’t have unlimited time so you won’t). It’s pretty clearly me screaming into the void that politics IS froth but should not be. No politician ever debates the actual issues.
That’s a cry to replace and improve them, not ignore them.
As you say, I don't have unlimited time.
If you think it's important to change and improve politics you shouldn't come out with such nonsense as saying it's a trivial matter that the prime minister tells such stupid, transparent lies.
Yeah I didn’t say that either.
But now I know you are a liar, which is helpful information.
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.
"So I am also announcing today that we will take the extraordinary step of introducing emergency legislation. This will enable parliament to confirm that, that with our new treaty, Rwanda is safe."
Also in the bill: 'with our new ship design, the Titanic can't sink.'
Well, yes, that’s precisely the analogy. The Gvt thinks a treaty with Rwanda (presumably with various institutions created) will make it safe; in the same way that a redesign of the titanic would have made it safe.
Yes, a redesign of the Titanic may have made it safer (not unsinkable though). But my analogy had no redesign it would simply be the government declaring the original design safe. The government declaring Rwanda safe doesn't change Rwanda.
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.
"So I am also announcing today that we will take the extraordinary step of introducing emergency legislation. This will enable parliament to confirm that, that with our new treaty, Rwanda is safe."
Also in the bill: 'with our new ship design, the Titanic can't sink.'
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.
Yet there are still those who present Trump v Biden as a Hobson's choice of "too old for the job" candidates.
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.
Coming soon - a manifesto commitment to hold back the tide?
Missing out the rest of the post kind of misses the intended point that in some cases they can achieve something by declaring something legally to be the case, even if in most cases they cannot. If they make it legally the case Rwanda is safe (with whatever bells and whistles they need to achieve that - guarantees, committments etc), then they can act even if it really is not safe, whereas declaring the tide can be stopped cannot advance any goal that requires it to be stopped.
So it may be a dumb strategy, but I don't think it is as dumb as its being presented as on its face by comparing to tides and the like, because the Rwanda issue is essentially about an opinion or interpretation of another state, not an immutable natural force.
But we are actually talking about something real here. Whether people are going to be safe if they are sent to Rwanda. Whether they are killed, beaten, imprisoned or raped is not really an airy-fairy matter of opinion that is going to be changed by a declaration made in Parliament.
I assume it will take more than just a declaration to make it legal despite their words about it, but as with the question of the Rwanda policy itself I was focusing on the potential legality as separate to the question of the moralities or practicalities of the idea.
Sometimes shitty things and ideas are legal. Could they figure out a way to declare Rwanda safe when it isn't? I feel confident they've managed something like it before, with sending people to places where they will be tortured or the like (that is only a guess about legislative creativity, not a firm example).
Should they declare it safe even if it is not? Of course not.
Compared with almost any other African country, Rwanda is exceptionally safe, organised, and well managed. Provided you’ve done nothing to upset the government there.
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.
Coming soon - a manifesto commitment to hold back the tide?
Missing out the rest of the post kind of misses the intended point that in some cases they can achieve something by declaring something legally to be the case, even if in most cases they cannot. If they make it legally the case Rwanda is safe (with whatever bells and whistles they need to achieve that - guarantees, committments etc), then they can act even if it really is not safe, whereas declaring the tide can be stopped cannot advance any goal that requires it to be stopped.
So it may be a dumb strategy, but I don't think it is as dumb as its being presented as on its face by comparing to tides and the like, because the Rwanda issue is essentially about an opinion or interpretation of another state, not an immutable natural force.
But we are actually talking about something real here. Whether people are going to be safe if they are sent to Rwanda. Whether they are killed, beaten, imprisoned or raped is not really an airy-fairy matter of opinion that is going to be changed by a declaration made in Parliament.
Safety is never absolute. India apparently assassinated someone in Canada recently and Russia has done it here.
And this is another reason I struggle with the idea that the safety of Rwanda is simply a matter of fact, as if that means indisputable. Safety is a judgement call on the facts. Countries, and parts within those countries, or people within those countries, will vary in their safety. The Courts presumably apply many legal tests in determining how to categorise a country for a specific scenario and don't just take the government's word for it (where they are not required by law to do so) on whether somewhere is safe, and some of those tests have evolved over time I expect. But could some wily government figure out a way to adjust how they apply that test?
I'm not sure they could successfully manage it, but they could surely attempt it, which is their first goal.
All of which is a sideshow to the principle of the idea to shift the problem to someone else being a bad one in the first place.
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.
Jesus.
Yes probably another Marxist, didnt like money lenders much and kept virtue signalling about feeding the poor.
The feeding of the 5000:
In fairness that's an appealing feast to me.
Nah, think how cold it will have been by the time is was laid out. He wasn’t thinking outside the box. He could have brought the kitchen to the Whitehouse.
Good point, McDonald's food has an appetising half life of about 5 minutes. It's why McDelivery just is not worth it.
Yes, I remember going to a drive thru in Ithaca and taking it back to the hotel I was staying in. By the time I got to eat it, it was soggy and not appealing at all. It seems you have to wolf it down before it deteriorates, revealing what you are eating.
A lot of talk about opposing Rwanda/unworkable/mad Tories etc
Not hearing anything on a workable migration policy. Who? Ideal numbers gross/net?
A good start would be to commit to reaching a returns agreement for asylum seekers with the EU, replacing the one that ended in 2018. Up to that point there were no small boats, because anyone landing would be returned to their country of origin whether they claimed asylum or not.
The EU would no doubt want something in return. £140m might do it though, that is the amount that has just been wasted on what was always going to be no more than a gimmick with Rwanda.
More to be added to the £140m for a new treaty:
On top of the £140m already paid, Home Office officials “could not deny the fact that they are looking at paying Rwanda yet more money for this,” says LBC political editor Natasha Clark on the Andrew Marr show.
“How much more are we going to pay them for a deal which might not see any flights go before the election?” asks Clark.
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.
"So I am also announcing today that we will take the extraordinary step of introducing emergency legislation. This will enable parliament to confirm that, that with our new treaty, Rwanda is safe."
Also in the bill: 'with our new ship design, the Titanic can't sink.'
Well, yes, that’s precisely the analogy. The Gvt thinks a treaty with Rwanda (presumably with various institutions created) will make it safe; in the same way that a redesign of the titanic would have made it safe.
Yes, a redesign of the Titanic may have made it safer (not unsinkable though). But my analogy had no redesign it would simply be the government declaring the original design safe. The government declaring Rwanda safe doesn't change Rwanda.
But that isn’t the proposal….. Honestly am I the only person who is opposed to this who is worried that a treaty (if done well) might actually make it a goer? We will then breve get rid of the aberration. Labour won’t stop it.
BTW, we do all know that small boat crossing have dropped dramatically this year, right?
At the beginning of the year, Ms Braverman warned that 85,000 people might come by boats this year, roughly double the number in 2022.
As of 11 November, we're at 27,314. So, instead of doubling this year, we're going to be down around about 40%.
Why?
Partly because the French have been a bit more helpful, and partly because we now do a much better job of returning Albanians. Ms Bravermam should be shouting from the rafters about how she's dramatically cut the number of boat arrivals, But that doesn't fit her narrative.
So, Sunak essentially initiates emergency legislation to override UK courts.
Is that a bit… dodgy?
This is very simple.
The Government implemented a policy which has been found to be in contravention of UK law (either directly or through legislation related to the ECHR).
To enable the policy to be legally implemented therefore requires UK law to be changed.
There is nothing dodgy about that.
However, a number of questions do arise principally around the fact that the UK parliament has enacted lots of legislation over the years, and therefore it is quite possible that HMG will be breaking some other law if they attempt to actually deport people.
The judgment today referred to three acts of parliament and four international conventions, including the ECHR.
But beyond that it commented: "It may be that the principle of non-refoulement also forms part of customary international law. The United Kingdom has subscribed to this view, along with the other states parties to the Refugee Convention, in the 2001 Declaration of States Parties to the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (UN Doc HCR/MMSP/2001/09). ... The significance of non-refoulment being a principle of customary international law is that it is consequently binding upon all states in international law, regardless of whether they are party to any treaties which give it effect. However, as we have not been addressed on this matter, we do not rely on it in our reasoning."
Obviously if the government amended all the relevant acts of parliament and abrogated all the relevant conventions, it would still have to convince the court that the principle was _not_ part of customary international law - which on the basis of that short comment might not be an easy matter.
What would the legal basis for blocking them be under International Maritime Law, I wonder?
Could the Danish govt not simply introduce legislation to deem it so and override the law?
That would be breaking the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea - as China have done.
I don't see the Danes doing that, especially on their own. The Danish Strait is an international waterway, and they probably do not have the resources.
It would probably need a NATO operation or EU coalition, and would be a far more direct confrontation than we have do far.
A lot of talk about opposing Rwanda/unworkable/mad Tories etc
Not hearing anything on a workable migration policy. Who? Ideal numbers gross/net?
That's easy:
If you want to come to the UK to work, you pay £5,000 for your first year; £4,000 for the second, £3,000 for the third, £2,000 for the fourth and £1,000 for the fifth.
Adjust the numbers upwards if you still find you have too many, or downwards if you're struggling with not enough workers and too many retirees.
No special treatment by occupation and very simple.
Or you could do it the other way around: there are 100,000 work visas available this year, let's auction them off and let the market decide who should come.
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.
Yet there are still those who present Trump v Biden as a Hobson's choice of "too old for the job" candidates.
It is a bare knuckle fight over whether democracy continues in America.
Every other issue is so minor it is irrelevant.
Most important election in the country's history.
Not sure US voters have really woken up to what Trump is telling them in plain sight now.
BTW, we do all know that small boat crossing have dropped dramatically this year, right?
At the beginning of the year, Ms Braverman warned that 85,000 people might come by boats this year, roughly double the number in 2022.
As of 11 November, we're at 27,314. So, instead of doubling this year, we're going to be down around about 40%.
Why?
Partly because the French have been a bit more helpful, and partly because we now do a much better job of returning Albanians. Ms Bravermam should be shouting from the rafters about how she's dramatically cut the number of boat arrivals, But that doesn't fit her narrative.
The weather along the Channel has mostly been diabolical since September, which will have resolved the problem by itself, I’d have thought?
BTW, we do all know that small boat crossing have dropped dramatically this year, right?
At the beginning of the year, Ms Braverman warned that 85,000 people might come by boats this year, roughly double the number in 2022.
As of 11 November, we're at 27,314. So, instead of doubling this year, we're going to be down around about 40%.
Why?
Partly because the French have been a bit more helpful, and partly because we now do a much better job of returning Albanians. Ms Bravermam should be shouting from the rafters about how she's dramatically cut the number of boat arrivals, But that doesn't fit her narrative.
As an aside, I think there was a poster on this site who was extrapolating a number of around 250,000...
Can any PBers think of anyone on the site who is prone to hyperbole and panic?
BTW, we do all know that small boat crossing have dropped dramatically this year, right?
At the beginning of the year, Ms Braverman warned that 85,000 people might come by boats this year, roughly double the number in 2022.
As of 11 November, we're at 27,314. So, instead of doubling this year, we're going to be down around about 40%.
Why?
Partly because the French have been a bit more helpful, and partly because we now do a much better job of returning Albanians. Ms Bravermam should be shouting from the rafters about how she's dramatically cut the number of boat arrivals, But that doesn't fit her narrative.
The weather along the Channel has mostly been diabolical since September, which will have resolved the problem by itself, I’d have thought?
I'm sure that's played a role, but if you just look at the first half of the year, numbers were also down about 40%.
Edit to add:
As of June 9, numbers were down 28% on the same period in 2022. So the weather clearly played a role in accelerating the decline, *but* even before bad weather set in, numbers were substantially down.
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.
Yet there are still those who present Trump v Biden as a Hobson's choice of "too old for the job" candidates.
It is a bare knuckle fight over whether democracy continues in America.
Every other issue is so minor it is irrelevant.
Most important election in the country's history.
Not sure US voters have really woken up to what Trump is telling them in plain sight now.
I pretty much agree. As you know I see Trump coming a cropper but if I'm wrong about that my betting loss although big will be the least of my worries.
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.
Coming soon - a manifesto commitment to hold back the tide?
Missing out the rest of the post kind of misses the intended point that in some cases they can achieve something by declaring something legally to be the case, even if in most cases they cannot. If they make it legally the case Rwanda is safe (with whatever bells and whistles they need to achieve that - guarantees, committments etc), then they can act even if it really is not safe, whereas declaring the tide can be stopped cannot advance any goal that requires it to be stopped.
So it may be a dumb strategy, but I don't think it is as dumb as its being presented as on its face by comparing to tides and the like, because the Rwanda issue is essentially about an opinion or interpretation of another state, not an immutable natural force.
But we are actually talking about something real here. Whether people are going to be safe if they are sent to Rwanda. Whether they are killed, beaten, imprisoned or raped is not really an airy-fairy matter of opinion that is going to be changed by a declaration made in Parliament.
The age of consent has made a 16 year old considered mature enough to legally have sex - it’s a “fact” made by law, applicable in this country and to those who are visiting but not an absolute - evidenced by other countries having different ages of consent. It is not always appropriate as there are many vulnerable people aged 16 and 17 who can suffer horribly as they aren’t emotionally mature enough or truly able to consent to sex but we accept this fact/law.
So government can clearly make “facts” through a declaration made in Parliament.
So, Sunak essentially initiates emergency legislation to override UK courts.
Is that a bit… dodgy?
This is very simple.
The Government implemented a policy which has been found to be in contravention of UK law (either directly or through legislation related to the ECHR).
To enable the policy to be legally implemented therefore requires UK law to be changed.
There is nothing dodgy about that.
However, a number of questions do arise principally around the fact that the UK parliament has enacted lots of legislation over the years, and therefore it is quite possible that HMG will be breaking some other law if they attempt to actually deport people.
Fundamentally, though, the problems comes down to the fact that the UK government is trying to do something completely different to every other country in this area: specifically, Australia, Germany, etc., are introducing offshore processing centres. So, while you wait for your asylum claim to be processed, you aren't able to wander out and join the local (informal/illegal) workforce as a day labourer.
We, by contrast, are saying "off you go to Rwanda, where you can claim asylum". Which (a) is severely limited by the number of people Rwanda will take, (b) is open to manipulation by applicants (Rwanda discriminates against homosexuals, for example), and (c) is much more open to individual legal challenge.
I am all in favour of off shore processing centres, as I am of funding our immigration services properly, so we can process claims as quickly as the Dutch. I think the Rwanda policy is stupid headline grabbing that won't actually result in any meaningful reduction in numbers claiming asylum in the UK.
This is what gets me about it, it's such a stupid policy on its own terms. For it to 'work' as a deterrent two things would have to be true - namely that you were deporting people at volume so it wasn't worth the risk of coming here, and Rwanda would have to be unpleasant enough that again, it wasn't worth it. The former won't happen not because of legality but because it would cost an eyewatering amount of money, while if the latter is true we'd be breaking every law or convention on the treatment of refugees going. All this nonsense because fundamentally the Tories have been an awful failure and are desperate to scoop up what votes they can from the few remaining people in the country for whom they are not a sick joke.
Even Sunak himself is unlikely to believe what he said today. Nor is the new home secretary, James Cleverly, who gave a more colourful and relaxed reiteration of the same view in a statement to the Commons. The reality is that they cannot easily make these changes. The situation in Rwanda will not permit it. A new arrangement would come before courts that would be bound by this week’s ruling. A Labour government would be unlikely to proceed anyway. The policy is dead. All else is fantasy.
Non-refoulement – in other words the commitment not to return an asylum seeker to a place where they might be at risk – is not dreamed up in Strasbourg to annoy the Tory party or subvert UK sovereignty. It is a core principle of international law. It is written into the UN convention. And it is part of UK domestic law already, not only through the Human Rights Act but through at least three pieces of immigration law.
The supreme court went out of its way to say it was concerned only with the law and not with politics. That claim is honestly and sincerely made. But the judgment has devastating political consequences. From first to last, the Rwanda policy has been a piece of performance politics, a pretend answer to the genuine problem of the small boats and the awful backlog in asylum cases. The judges, a shining light of sanity in what is currently a mad political world, have now called it out. They have stood up for the law, as they should. If only ministers would do the same. But that would be fantasy too.
BTW, we do all know that small boat crossing have dropped dramatically this year, right?
At the beginning of the year, Ms Braverman warned that 85,000 people might come by boats this year, roughly double the number in 2022.
As of 11 November, we're at 27,314. So, instead of doubling this year, we're going to be down around about 40%.
Why?
Partly because the French have been a bit more helpful, and partly because we now do a much better job of returning Albanians. Ms Bravermam should be shouting from the rafters about how she's dramatically cut the number of boat arrivals, But that doesn't fit her narrative.
How can Albania - a country which is neither large, next door to us, or at war - have been responsible for quite so many migrants?
BTW, we do all know that small boat crossing have dropped dramatically this year, right?
At the beginning of the year, Ms Braverman warned that 85,000 people might come by boats this year, roughly double the number in 2022.
As of 11 November, we're at 27,314. So, instead of doubling this year, we're going to be down around about 40%.
Why?
Partly because the French have been a bit more helpful, and partly because we now do a much better job of returning Albanians. Ms Bravermam should be shouting from the rafters about how she's dramatically cut the number of boat arrivals, But that doesn't fit her narrative.
How can Albania - a country which is neither large, next door to us, or at war - have been responsible for quite so many migrants?
Don't forget the numbers aren't that big. If 20% of 45,000 arrivals were Albanian, that's only 9,000 people.
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.
Yet there are still those who present Trump v Biden as a Hobson's choice of "too old for the job" candidates.
It is a bare knuckle fight over whether democracy continues in America.
Every other issue is so minor it is irrelevant.
Most important election in the country's history.
Not sure US voters have really woken up to what Trump is telling them in plain sight now.
I would like to think that some of the more sensible Republicans are doing some war-gaming and preparing, if necessary, to take Trump down with a concerted attack on him at some point -when it would do most damage. Thinking of George W Bush. Schwarzenneger, et al. Won't necessarily impact on the "base" but may influence Independents without whom Trump can't really win.
BTW, we do all know that small boat crossing have dropped dramatically this year, right?
At the beginning of the year, Ms Braverman warned that 85,000 people might come by boats this year, roughly double the number in 2022.
As of 11 November, we're at 27,314. So, instead of doubling this year, we're going to be down around about 40%.
Why?
Partly because the French have been a bit more helpful, and partly because we now do a much better job of returning Albanians. Ms Bravermam should be shouting from the rafters about how she's dramatically cut the number of boat arrivals, But that doesn't fit her narrative.
So we can Stop The Boats by being nice to our neighbours and processing returns and actually deporting them?
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.
Yet there are still those who present Trump v Biden as a Hobson's choice of "too old for the job" candidates.
It is a bare knuckle fight over whether democracy continues in America.
Every other issue is so minor it is irrelevant.
Most important election in the country's history.
Not sure US voters have really woken up to what Trump is telling them in plain sight now.
I would like to think that some of the more sensible Republicans are doing some war-gaming and preparing, if necessary, to take Trump down with a concerted attack on him at some point -when it would do most damage. Thinking of George W Bush. Schwarzenneger, et al. Won't necessarily impact on the "base" but may influence Independents without whom Trump can't really win.
Well, I doubt Liz Cheney for one is just sitting around in her pjs watching day time TV.
BTW, we do all know that small boat crossing have dropped dramatically this year, right?
At the beginning of the year, Ms Braverman warned that 85,000 people might come by boats this year, roughly double the number in 2022.
As of 11 November, we're at 27,314. So, instead of doubling this year, we're going to be down around about 40%.
Why?
Partly because the French have been a bit more helpful, and partly because we now do a much better job of returning Albanians. Ms Bravermam should be shouting from the rafters about how she's dramatically cut the number of boat arrivals, But that doesn't fit her narrative.
How can Albania - a country which is neither large, next door to us, or at war - have been responsible for quite so many migrants?
Which presumably why it is relatively straightforward to adjudicate on their claim, and to deport them, if you can be arsed to do so.
BTW, we do all know that small boat crossing have dropped dramatically this year, right?
At the beginning of the year, Ms Braverman warned that 85,000 people might come by boats this year, roughly double the number in 2022.
As of 11 November, we're at 27,314. So, instead of doubling this year, we're going to be down around about 40%.
Why?
Partly because the French have been a bit more helpful, and partly because we now do a much better job of returning Albanians. Ms Bravermam should be shouting from the rafters about how she's dramatically cut the number of boat arrivals, But that doesn't fit her narrative.
How can Albania - a country which is neither large, next door to us, or at war - have been responsible for quite so many migrants?
Don't forget the numbers aren't that big. If 20% of 45,000 arrivals were Albanian, that's only 9,000 people.
Yes, fair point - but 9,000 is still quite a surprisingly large proportion of all Albanians. That's 1 out of every 300 Albanians in the world electing to make a hazardous sea crossing in order to join a criminal underclass.
The government has put up some junior nobody up to respond to this debate (not particularly effectively), which seems odd?
BTW, thinking about a related topic, who is the most senior FO minister in the Commons now, and are they likely to get a much higher profile than their job title would suggest?
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.
It is pretty terrifying etc but I would suggest that, in the very grand scheme of things, this is best interpreted as a reaction to the cultural power of the left. It was always going to lead to something like this.
The Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), led by President Paul Kagame, has ruled the country since 1994, when it ousted forces responsible for that year’s genocide and ended a civil war. While the regime has maintained stability and economic growth, it has also suppressed political dissent through pervasive surveillance, intimidation, arbitrary detention, torture, and renditions or suspected assassinations of exiled dissidents.
BTW, we do all know that small boat crossing have dropped dramatically this year, right?
At the beginning of the year, Ms Braverman warned that 85,000 people might come by boats this year, roughly double the number in 2022.
As of 11 November, we're at 27,314. So, instead of doubling this year, we're going to be down around about 40%.
Why?
Partly because the French have been a bit more helpful, and partly because we now do a much better job of returning Albanians. Ms Bravermam should be shouting from the rafters about how she's dramatically cut the number of boat arrivals, But that doesn't fit her narrative.
As an aside, I think there was a poster on this site who was extrapolating a number of around 250,000...
Can any PBers think of anyone on the site who is prone to hyperbole and panic?
To be fair to Sunak the SC did rule asylum seekers could have their claims processed abroad. Just greater checks need to be made to ensure they are not returned to the nation they have fled if persecuted.
Treaty changes can achieve that as the PM is trying
BTW, we do all know that small boat crossing have dropped dramatically this year, right?
At the beginning of the year, Ms Braverman warned that 85,000 people might come by boats this year, roughly double the number in 2022.
As of 11 November, we're at 27,314. So, instead of doubling this year, we're going to be down around about 40%.
Why?
Partly because the French have been a bit more helpful, and partly because we now do a much better job of returning Albanians. Ms Bravermam should be shouting from the rafters about how she's dramatically cut the number of boat arrivals, But that doesn't fit her narrative.
I keep pointing out that Sunak has done a good job on this, but it keeps being dismissed.
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.
It is pretty terrifying etc but I would suggest that, in the very grand scheme of things, this is best interpreted as a reaction to the cultural power of the left. It was always going to lead to something like this.
So when a right-wing sociopath brings about the destruction of the foremost western democracy it will all be the fault of... the left.
Ok.
And presumably, car theft is the fault of the car owner for goading the car thief?
BTW, we do all know that small boat crossing have dropped dramatically this year, right?
At the beginning of the year, Ms Braverman warned that 85,000 people might come by boats this year, roughly double the number in 2022.
As of 11 November, we're at 27,314. So, instead of doubling this year, we're going to be down around about 40%.
Why?
Partly because the French have been a bit more helpful, and partly because we now do a much better job of returning Albanians. Ms Bravermam should be shouting from the rafters about how she's dramatically cut the number of boat arrivals, But that doesn't fit her narrative.
How can Albania - a country which is neither large, next door to us, or at war - have been responsible for quite so many migrants?
Because criminal gangs are well tapped in there and they found a loophole in the small print to enable economic migrants to claim asylum en masse.
BTW, we do all know that small boat crossing have dropped dramatically this year, right?
At the beginning of the year, Ms Braverman warned that 85,000 people might come by boats this year, roughly double the number in 2022.
As of 11 November, we're at 27,314. So, instead of doubling this year, we're going to be down around about 40%.
Why?
Partly because the French have been a bit more helpful, and partly because we now do a much better job of returning Albanians. Ms Bravermam should be shouting from the rafters about how she's dramatically cut the number of boat arrivals, But that doesn't fit her narrative.
The weather along the Channel has mostly been diabolical since September, which will have resolved the problem by itself, I’d have thought?
That's one of the biggest factors, yes.
A solution would simply be to have shit weather in the Channel, forevermore*.
[*I bet if humans did it on purpose some leftwing dickhead would challenge it in the courts though, and win.]
BTW, we do all know that small boat crossing have dropped dramatically this year, right?
At the beginning of the year, Ms Braverman warned that 85,000 people might come by boats this year, roughly double the number in 2022.
As of 11 November, we're at 27,314. So, instead of doubling this year, we're going to be down around about 40%.
Why?
Partly because the French have been a bit more helpful, and partly because we now do a much better job of returning Albanians. Ms Bravermam should be shouting from the rafters about how she's dramatically cut the number of boat arrivals, But that doesn't fit her narrative.
I keep pointing out that Sunak has done a good job on this, but it keeps being dismissed.
He should have stopped chasing positive headlines from the right wing media and simply said we will reduce the boat crossings and yes they have gone down.
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 job of the judiciary is to independently arbitrate on the correct application of the law, not to make the law.
To be fair to Sunak the SC did rule asylum seekers could have their claims processed abroad. Just greater checks need to be made to ensure they are not returned to the nation they have fled if persecuted.
Treaty changes can achieve that as the PM is trying
Treaty changes will not change two facts: A new law/regulation can and will be challenged ab initio and Each individual case can and will be challenged on its own facts.
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.
It is pretty terrifying etc but I would suggest that, in the very grand scheme of things, this is best interpreted as a reaction to the cultural power of the left. It was always going to lead to something like this.
So when a right-wing sociopath brings about the destruction of the foremost western democracy it will all be the fault of... the left.
Ok.
And presumably, car theft is the fault of the car owner for goading the car thief?
I am not 'blaming' anyone. Just commenting on how the second iteration of Trump is part of a cycle of reaction.
All the riots etc in 2020 would inevitably provoke a reaction - this is it.
BTW, we do all know that small boat crossing have dropped dramatically this year, right?
At the beginning of the year, Ms Braverman warned that 85,000 people might come by boats this year, roughly double the number in 2022.
As of 11 November, we're at 27,314. So, instead of doubling this year, we're going to be down around about 40%.
Why?
Partly because the French have been a bit more helpful, and partly because we now do a much better job of returning Albanians. Ms Bravermam should be shouting from the rafters about how she's dramatically cut the number of boat arrivals, But that doesn't fit her narrative.
As an aside, I think there was a poster on this site who was extrapolating a number of around 250,000...
Can any PBers think of anyone on the site who is prone to hyperbole and panic?
I could trawl through the posts and see if I stumbLE ON who you might mean.
BTW, we do all know that small boat crossing have dropped dramatically this year, right?
At the beginning of the year, Ms Braverman warned that 85,000 people might come by boats this year, roughly double the number in 2022.
As of 11 November, we're at 27,314. So, instead of doubling this year, we're going to be down around about 40%.
Why?
Partly because the French have been a bit more helpful, and partly because we now do a much better job of returning Albanians. Ms Bravermam should be shouting from the rafters about how she's dramatically cut the number of boat arrivals, But that doesn't fit her narrative.
How can Albania - a country which is neither large, next door to us, or at war - have been responsible for quite so many migrants?
Because criminal gangs are well tapped in there and they found a loophole in the small print to enable economic migrants to claim asylum en masse.
Anyone can *claim* asylum.
The key is to ensure that (a) people are processed and deported rapidly if asylum is rejected, and (b) that they do not disappear into the local informal economy along the way.
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.
Coming soon - a manifesto commitment to hold back the tide?
Missing out the rest of the post kind of misses the intended point that in some cases they can achieve something by declaring something legally to be the case, even if in most cases they cannot. If they make it legally the case Rwanda is safe (with whatever bells and whistles they need to achieve that - guarantees, committments etc), then they can act even if it really is not safe, whereas declaring the tide can be stopped cannot advance any goal that requires it to be stopped.
So it may be a dumb strategy, but I don't think it is as dumb as its being presented as on its face by comparing to tides and the like, because the Rwanda issue is essentially about an opinion or interpretation of another state, not an immutable natural force.
But we are actually talking about something real here. Whether people are going to be safe if they are sent to Rwanda. Whether they are killed, beaten, imprisoned or raped is not really an airy-fairy matter of opinion that is going to be changed by a declaration made in Parliament.
The age of consent has made a 16 year old considered mature enough to legally have sex - it’s a “fact” made by law, applicable in this country and to those who are visiting but not an absolute - evidenced by other countries having different ages of consent. It is not always appropriate as there are many vulnerable people aged 16 and 17 who can suffer horribly as they aren’t emotionally mature enough or truly able to consent to sex but we accept this fact/law.
So government can clearly make “facts” through a declaration made in Parliament.
This argument could fairly be called a work in progress, perhaps with room for improvement.
Another little maths problem. Rwanda, despite its startling expense, was never on a scale that could have dealt with our immigration problems. It was essentally performative. Virtue-signalling by show-boating politicians who lacked the work ethic and/or ability required to practically address the real problems of illegal immigration in general and 'small boats' in particular.
We end in a position where those most interested in immigration as an issue largely despise the Govt's obvious inability to act. Those less interested just shake their heads at the time, effort and money wasted on a policy which could never succeed.
Its bad policy and bad politics. So no doubt the Govt will try to double down and there goes any hope that you could sell a 'turn to the centre'. Then, having pissed off both the right and the centre, what exactly is Mr Sunak's master plan?
Comments
For anyone interested, a longer version - exploring further the role of Ministers - is here: https://www.cyclefree.co.uk/what-are-ministers-for/.
(You can, you know, subscribe. It's free. And you get gardening tips. Plus properly-sized photos. None of this Vanilla postage stamp nonsense.)
Also in the bill: 'with our new ship design, the Titanic can't sink.'
One is a policy disagreement, the other damages some of the building blocks of our democracy.
* I would actually support the government if it seriously tried to reform ECHR rules at the global level.
But what they are chucking out there, and some on here seem to believe for some reason, is they can declare Rwanda safe and that this would have legal force. It wouldn't. It isn't how the law works, and it would be an appalling waste of time and money to pretend otherwise.
So it may be a dumb strategy, but I don't think it is as dumb as its being presented as on its face by comparing to tides and the like, because the Rwanda issue is essentially about an opinion or interpretation of another state, not an immutable natural force.
That would be your man Rose, who warned us all that our pay would rise if we dared to vote Leave.
Were it not entirely in accord with the way they've behaved for years.
That’s a cry to replace and improve them, not ignore them.
* Actually, if he wasn't so squeamish about violence, he could have done something. Even a semi-competent plan for Jan 6 would have taken control of Congress and forced a vote in his favour. But that would have meant deaths on his direction.
But we should very much worry about what the United States would look like two years into a second Trump presidency. If he retains control of the Republican Party then the damage he could do could take years to undo, if ever. The damage on global diplomatic infrastructure would be even greater, and undoable.
Moore told NPR in an interview released Tuesday that multiple pastors had told him they would quote the Sermon on the Mount, specifically the part that says to “turn the other cheek,” when preaching. Someone would come up after the service and ask, “Where did you get those liberal talking points?”
“What was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, ‘I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ,’ the response would not be, ‘I apologize.’ The response would be, ‘Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak,’” Moore said. “When we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.”
https://newrepublic.com/post/174950/christianity-today-editor-evangelicals-call-jesus-liberal-weak
Which would be fine, except I'd bet good money many people explicitly rejecting the words of Christ still insist they are very firm Christians.
But then, Christians have been arguing with other Christians as long as there have been Christians.
Not hearing anything on a workable migration policy. Who? Ideal numbers gross/net?
If you think it's important to change and improve politics you shouldn't come out with such nonsense as saying it's a trivial matter that the prime minister tells such stupid, transparent lies.
Sometimes shitty things and ideas are legal. Could they figure out a way to declare Rwanda safe when it isn't? I feel confident they've managed something like it before, with sending people to places where they will be tortured or the like (that is only a guess about legislative creativity, not a firm example).
Should they declare it safe even if it is not? Of course not.
Parliament is sovereign, yes, but the law engages with the entire history of what parliament has ever done and also the Common law, and the entire edifice of precedents going back, where necessary, hundreds of years.
Parliament is at liberty to amend any of that by legislation of course, which in turn becomes part of the totality of law for courts to consider.
If you compare for one moment, for example, debates in the HoC and the quality of submissions by counsel in the SC, you will find you are on different planets, and playing the game in different leagues.
Parliament on the whole has no idea what it is doing, or what the consequences are. The courts exist to tell them what they have done and to rectify their defects.
In the past the government has gotten away with failing on its migration goals by trying to look as though they are doing something, or complaining about being blocked from doing something. They may hope they can repeat that.
Presumably Braverman and others realise they will no longer get away with simply trying and have to do something, and are more willing to take extreme or unlawful action.
The Government implemented a policy which has been found to be in contravention of UK law (either directly or through legislation related to the ECHR).
To enable the policy to be legally implemented therefore requires UK law to be changed.
There is nothing dodgy about that.
However, a number of questions do arise principally around the fact that the UK parliament has enacted lots of legislation over the years, and therefore it is quite possible that HMG will be breaking some other law if they attempt to actually deport people.
Fundamentally, though, the problems comes down to the fact that the UK government is trying to do something completely different to every other country in this area: specifically, Australia, Germany, etc., are introducing offshore processing centres. So, while you wait for your asylum claim to be processed, you aren't able to wander out and join the local (informal/illegal) workforce as a day labourer.
We, by contrast, are saying "off you go to Rwanda, where you can claim asylum". Which (a) is severely limited by the number of people Rwanda will take, (b) is open to manipulation by applicants (Rwanda discriminates against homosexuals, for example), and (c) is much more open to individual legal challenge.
I am all in favour of off shore processing centres, as I am of funding our immigration services properly, so we can process claims as quickly as the Dutch. I think the Rwanda policy is stupid headline grabbing that won't actually result in any meaningful reduction in numbers claiming asylum in the UK.
Copy Switzerland. Fund the Home Office and Courts to process claims quickly so asylum seekers can work or be deported rather than be paid by us to stay in hotels for years on end. Migration generally, we need a substantial amount, so build more houses and infrastructure.
If you want to come to the UK to work, you pay £5,000 for your first year; £4,000 for the second, £3,000 for the third, £2,000 for the fourth and £1,000 for the fifth.
Adjust the numbers upwards if you still find you have too many, or downwards if you're struggling with not enough workers and too many retirees.
No special treatment by occupation and very simple.
Is it impossible the government can find a way to change the rules to apply to that fact, or which factors and evidence are allowed to be considered when doing so? Sounds pretty hard to me, but by your description you make it sound a lot easier than I thought it would be, since changing rules and laws to apply to the facts sounds like what they are proposing. That's not literally 'declaring Rwanda safe', but can they change the rules to apply adjust the intepretations?
The EU would no doubt want something in return. £140m might do it though, that is the amount that has just been wasted on what was always going to be no more than a gimmick with Rwanda.
But now I know you are a liar, which is helpful information.
I'm not sure they could successfully manage it, but they could surely attempt it, which is their first goal.
All of which is a sideshow to the principle of the idea to shift the problem to someone else being a bad one in the first place.
On top of the £140m already paid, Home Office officials “could not deny the fact that they are looking at paying Rwanda yet more money for this,” says LBC political editor Natasha Clark on the Andrew Marr show.
“How much more are we going to pay them for a deal which might not see any flights go before the election?” asks Clark.
At the beginning of the year, Ms Braverman warned that 85,000 people might come by boats this year, roughly double the number in 2022.
As of 11 November, we're at 27,314. So, instead of doubling this year, we're going to be down around about 40%.
Why?
Partly because the French have been a bit more helpful, and partly because we now do a much better job of returning Albanians. Ms Bravermam should be shouting from the rafters about how she's dramatically cut the number of boat arrivals, But that doesn't fit her narrative.
But beyond that it commented:
"It may be that the principle of non-refoulement also forms part of customary international law. The United Kingdom has subscribed to this view, along with the other states parties to the Refugee Convention, in the 2001 Declaration of States Parties to the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (UN Doc HCR/MMSP/2001/09). ... The significance of non-refoulment being a principle of customary international law is that it is consequently binding upon all states in international law, regardless of whether they are party to any treaties which give it effect. However, as we have not been addressed on this matter, we do not rely on it in our reasoning."
Obviously if the government amended all the relevant acts of parliament and abrogated all the relevant conventions, it would still have to convince the court that the principle was _not_ part of customary international law - which on the basis of that short comment might not be an easy matter.
I don't see the Danes doing that, especially on their own. The Danish Strait is an international waterway, and they probably do not have the resources.
It would probably need a NATO operation or EU coalition, and would be a far more direct confrontation than we have do far.
PS It's been pooh-poohed by the EU, the Danes, the Russians and experts.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/denmark-could-block-russian-oil-tankers-reaching-markets-ft-2023-11-15/
The Ukranian military managed to convert themselves from old Soviet doctrine, to modern NATO doctrine, before the attacks of 2022.
Every other issue is so minor it is irrelevant.
Most important election in the country's history.
Not sure US voters have really woken up to what Trump is telling them in plain sight now.
Nations have blocked other nations trade through their territorial waters, before.
Can any PBers think of anyone on the site who is prone to hyperbole and panic?
Edit to add:
As of June 9, numbers were down 28% on the same period in 2022. So the weather clearly played a role in accelerating the decline, *but* even before bad weather set in, numbers were substantially down.
The age of consent has made a 16 year old considered mature enough to legally have sex - it’s a “fact” made by law, applicable in this country and to those who are visiting but not an absolute - evidenced by other countries having different ages of consent. It is not always appropriate as there are many vulnerable people aged 16 and 17 who can suffer horribly as they aren’t emotionally mature enough or truly able to consent to sex but we accept this fact/law.
So government can clearly make “facts” through a declaration made in Parliament.
All this nonsense because fundamentally the Tories have been an awful failure and are desperate to scoop up what votes they can from the few remaining people in the country for whom they are not a sick joke.
Even Sunak himself is unlikely to believe what he said today. Nor is the new home secretary, James Cleverly, who gave a more colourful and relaxed reiteration of the same view in a statement to the Commons. The reality is that they cannot easily make these changes. The situation in Rwanda will not permit it. A new arrangement would come before courts that would be bound by this week’s ruling. A Labour government would be unlikely to proceed anyway. The policy is dead. All else is fantasy.
Non-refoulement – in other words the commitment not to return an asylum seeker to a place where they might be at risk – is not dreamed up in Strasbourg to annoy the Tory party or subvert UK sovereignty. It is a core principle of international law. It is written into the UN convention. And it is part of UK domestic law already, not only through the Human Rights Act but through at least three pieces of immigration law.
The supreme court went out of its way to say it was concerned only with the law and not with politics. That claim is honestly and sincerely made. But the judgment has devastating political consequences. From first to last, the Rwanda policy has been a piece of performance politics, a pretend answer to the genuine problem of the small boats and the awful backlog in asylum cases. The judges, a shining light of sanity in what is currently a mad political world, have now called it out. They have stood up for the law, as they should. If only ministers would do the same. But that would be fantasy too.
And this works better than posturing?
The Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), led by President Paul Kagame, has ruled the country since 1994, when it ousted forces responsible for that year’s genocide and ended a civil war. While the regime has maintained stability and economic growth, it has also suppressed political dissent through pervasive surveillance, intimidation, arbitrary detention, torture, and renditions or suspected assassinations of exiled dissidents.
https://freedomhouse.org/country/rwanda/freedom-world/2023
Treaty changes can achieve that as the PM is trying
Ok.
And presumably, car theft is the fault of the car owner for goading the car thief?
A solution would simply be to have shit weather in the Channel, forevermore*.
[*I bet if humans did it on purpose some leftwing dickhead would challenge it in the courts though, and win.]
That is the job of Parliament.
It is a court of all the signatories surely???
A new law/regulation can and will be challenged ab initio
and
Each individual case can and will be challenged on its own facts.
All the riots etc in 2020 would inevitably provoke a reaction - this is it.
The key is to ensure that (a) people are processed and deported rapidly if asylum is rejected, and (b) that they do not disappear into the local informal economy along the way.
The UK is pretty poor on both of these. The Dutch have a dashboard showing average asylum processing times and for those coming from EU / EEA / Switzerland / UK, then 96% are processed within 11 weeks.
Why can't we do similarly? It would almost certainly save us an absolute fortune, and discourage those whose claims are not likely to be accepted.
And we also do really poorly on people disappearing. Norway estimates they have only 300 failed asylum seekers in the whole country! Now, sure, they're smaller than us. So, scaled upwards that would be maybe 6,000. But 6,000 would still be absolute peanuts compared to now.
https://x.com/ProfPMiddleton/status/1724820053357445593?s=20
https://x.com/synod/status/1724742377657565615?s=20
We end in a position where those most interested in immigration as an issue largely despise the Govt's obvious inability to act. Those less interested just shake their heads at the time, effort and money wasted on a policy which could never succeed.
Its bad policy and bad politics. So no doubt the Govt will try to double down and there goes any hope that you could sell a 'turn to the centre'. Then, having pissed off both the right and the centre, what exactly is Mr Sunak's master plan?