Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?
- Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive - some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks - Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner - Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen - Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen - cross fingers and hope for the best?
Make it easier to enter UK legitimately so no need for boats and then process vey quickly so no need for hotels. Identify barriers to fast processing and remove them. It's not rocket science.
Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
A measured response might be a mix of processing claims more quickly, and reducing the £4bn or so we're spending on virtual incarceration of applicants, by allowing them some way of usefully participating in the economy, instead of condemning them to years of enforced idleness.
New post office witness has just started giving evidence. "Warwick Tatford, external counsel instructed by the PO". Jason Beer KC asking the questions.
Pretty dire for the Tories. But Rwanda was always a ridiculously unworkable policy
The Tories could not run a bath, serial duffers. How did these clowns ever become millionaires, certainly not due to their own skills and intelligence for sure.
On looking at the Supreme Court's reasoning, I think it would have decided the case differently if asylum cases were being processed in Rwanda rather than being transferred to Rwanda. Still ludicrous, but it would have been a victory.
"Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.
I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.
The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.
The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.
They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.
Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.
You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.
Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."
The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again
And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world
And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?
If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.
In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:
Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?
International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are: - Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza? - If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate? - If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?
FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.
We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.
Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.
The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
it's worth noting that the use of human shields is itself a war crime, whether foreign hostages (also a war crime other than the soldiers, though rules still apply on how and where they're held), or domestic civilians.
If the Government is looking for a workaround, the trick is to ensure that they are intercepted by Royal Navy ships before they hit UK dry land/shore. That way they never fall under UK jurisdiction and the SC writ doesn't hold sway to ships at sea.
I also need to point out that the US are decommissioning thirty-odd nearly-new Littoral Command Ships because they don't have the range for long-range combat
A combination of helicopters and 30-odd LCSs should be more that enough to set up a 24-hr conveyor from UK to Rwanda/wherever, with intercept/processing/first-aid/disembarkation without ever falling under SC jurisdiction.
On looking at the Supreme Court's reasoning, I think it would have decided the case differently if asylum cases were being processed in Rwanda rather than being transferred to Rwanda. Still ludicrous, but it would have been a victory.
They are being processed there so I don’t understand his reasoning . The whole point was the danger that the Rwandan authorities wouldn’t process them properly and deport genuine refugees .
Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?
- Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive - some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks - Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner - Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen - Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen - cross fingers and hope for the best?
Have lots of barges in the middle of the channel, all who arrive get shipped there to be processed.
"Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.
I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.
The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.
The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.
They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.
Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.
You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.
Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."
The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again
And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world
And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?
If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.
In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:
Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?
International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are: - Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza? - If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate? - If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?
FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.
We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.
Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.
The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
All of that is pretty much what Israel is currently doing already. The bombing has mostly stopped, which is why the death toll is climbing much more slowly than it has been, and the primary focus of the ground troops has been on the tunnels for a couple of weeks now.
Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?
- Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive - some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks - Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner - Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen - Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen - cross fingers and hope for the best?
The best fix is a cross border agreement on refugee settlement, processing and distribution, on a pan-European level (and ideally bringing in border countries like Turkey.
If only there was an organisation that we could be a member of that might give us some clout to try and get heads together on this topic?
This is why the UK is a great place for international business.
They know our judiciary will put the government back in their box when appropriate.
She can always run for the leadership on a platform of abolishing them ?
But as far as mainstream politics is concerned, she's a busted flush.
She really isn’t. She’s cleverly detached herself from this - just in time. And she’s detached herself from a guaranteed lost election. She can blame everyone but herself
She is now the standard bearer of the right and any candidate will need her on board - if she doesn’t win herself
"Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.
I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.
The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.
The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.
They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.
Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.
You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.
Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."
The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again
And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world
And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?
If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.
In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:
Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?
International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are: - Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza? - If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate? - If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?
FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.
We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.
Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.
The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
it's worth noting that the use of human shields is itself a war crime, whether foreign hostages (also a war crime other than the soldiers, though rules still apply on how and where they're held), or domestic civilians.
There is no doubt that Hamas are guilty of war crimes.
The question for Israel is how best to neutralise Hamas both legally and morally. Bombing is not the best way. It might be legal but it's not moral and for Israel it risks losing international support.
But they need to keep fighting Hamas and fix the tunnels. That's where Hamas is, and there aren't many civilians in the tunnels.
A small drop in interest rates will save me thousands of pounds. That’s all I really care about. My fixed rate expiry in February 2024 beckons…
I've just signed on for a 2 year fix from 1st February. An extra £230 a month on the mortgage. Thanks Rishi!
What's the o/s, £150k or so ?
Mid '25 remortgage for me, from 1.49% with about 182k remaining. Hopefully Iran and the USA can keep their missiles from each other in the middle east till then...
ouch , that will be sore , be close to 4% jump unless a miracle happens so north of 400 a month.
Mine’s in 3 tranches after 2 remortgages. The first went a few months ago and jumped to about 5.5% but that was thankfully the smallest of the 3 chunks. The big ones come up in 2025 by which time I also hope rates are well on the way down.
One of mine , BTL, up January and just got new deal , big jump in rate at 6% but luckily not huge so only £100 a month extra. By luck I took 10 years on my main one , was a bit higher at time at 2.4% but turned out to be great decision.
This is why the UK is a great place for international business.
They know our judiciary will put the government back in their box when appropriate.
She can always run for the leadership on a platform of abolishing them ?
But as far as mainstream politics is concerned, she's a busted flush.
She really isn’t. She’s cleverly detached herself from this - just in time. And she’s detached herself from a guaranteed lost election. She can blame everyone but herself
She is now the standard bearer of the right and any candidate will need her on board - if she doesn’t win herself
Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?
- Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive - some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks - Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner - Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen - Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen - cross fingers and hope for the best?
Make it easier to enter UK legitimately so no need for boats and then process vey quickly so no need for hotels. Identify barriers to fast processing and remove them. It's not rocket science.
This is in fact Labour policy (I heard Stephen Kinnock on it in very similar terms).
"Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.
I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.
The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.
The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.
They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.
Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.
You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.
Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."
The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again
And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world
And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?
If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.
In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:
Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?
International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are: - Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza? - If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate? - If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?
FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.
We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.
Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.
The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
it's worth noting that the use of human shields is itself a war crime, whether foreign hostages (also a war crime other than the soldiers, though rules still apply on how and where they're held), or domestic civilians.
There is no doubt that Hamas are guilty of war crimes.
The question for Israel is how best to neutralise Hamas both legally and morally. Bombing is not the best way. It might be legal but it's not moral and for Israel it risks losing international support.
But they need to keep fighting Hamas and fix the tunnels. That's where Hamas is, and there aren't many civilians in the tunnels.
That would be bloody. Block all the exits except one and insert some form of fuel-air mix in the remaining one.
Supreme Court pres currently making clear it's not *just* the ECHR that applies to this: there are other treaties, including the UN refugee convention, which need to be respected under intl' law
"Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.
I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.
The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.
The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.
They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.
Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.
You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.
Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."
The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again
And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world
And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?
If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.
In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:
Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?
International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are: - Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza? - If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate? - If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?
FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.
We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.
Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.
The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
All of that is pretty much what Israel is currently doing already. The bombing has mostly stopped, which is why the death toll is climbing much more slowly than it has been, and the primary focus of the ground troops has been on the tunnels for a couple of weeks now.
That makes sense. So Israel should declare an end to the bombing and adhere to it. That would take the heat out of the calls for a ceasefire.
Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
A measured response might be a mix of processing claims more quickly, and reducing the £4bn or so we're spending on virtual incarceration of applicants, by allowing them some way of usefully participating in the economy, instead of condemning them to years of enforced idleness.
Indeed it might. But the "virtual incarceration" is a part of the hostile environment introduced by Mrs May. The concern is that otherwise you increase the risk of them establishing family life here and making an article 6 claim on that basis. The priority has always been to properly resource both assessments and implementation of the decisions. So many reported cases involve asylum seekers who have been in this country for a decade or more living in limbo. It is not only cruel (and it is), it is also an astonishing waste of public money.
So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.
As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.
Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.
It's likely that the 80% success rate is linked to people being willing to risk the boats - if you're pretty sure you'll be accepted if only the crossing risk can be managed, the incentive is huge. Allowing legal applications from abroad without the Hunger Games element of having to cross by boat doesn't mean that we'll suddenly have 80% of all possible claims approved.
This is why the UK is a great place for international business.
They know our judiciary will put the government back in their box when appropriate.
Yes - I think I’m most proud of this fact. At least one aspect of our system works
The rule of law is almost certainly the largest single difference between the UK (and most other western countries) and the likes of Argentina as described by @Alanbrooke in his recent thread header. The economic benefits of such judicial independence are massively underrated.
Supreme Court pres currently making clear it's not *just* the ECHR that applies to this: there are other treaties, including the UN refugee convention, which need to be respected under intl' law
Oh, what a tangled web we've weaved.
The whole edifice of post-WW2 treaties needs to go.
Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
A response isn't enough.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
A measured response might be a mix of processing claims more quickly, and reducing the £4bn or so we're spending on virtual incarceration of applicants, by allowing them some way of usefully participating in the economy, instead of condemning them to years of enforced idleness.
Apparently after 12 months asylum seekers can get work permits for certain shortage jobs.
One option would be to triage asylum seekers. Put everyone with papers from a country likely to qualify into a light touch group. And yes, invest in processing people quicker.
Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?
- Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive - some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks - Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner - Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen - Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen - cross fingers and hope for the best?
The best fix is a cross border agreement on refugee settlement, processing and distribution, on a pan-European level (and ideally bringing in border countries like Turkey.
If only there was an organisation that we could be a member of that might give us some clout to try and get heads together on this topic?
We are in the Council of Europe, NATO and the European Political Community. The EU is set up to coordinate between member states and create common positions. It is not good at handling externalities or outside context problems like the population of Africa and MENA deciding to move north for a bit. There are many cases for being in the EU, but arguably this is not one of them.
Court suggests that even if UK were to pull out of *all* international treaties the scheme may still be illegal. Suggests non-refoulment is "a principle of customary international law" binding regardless of treaties
So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.
As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.
Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.
It's likely that the 80% success rate is linked to people being willing to risk the boats - if you're pretty sure you'll be accepted if only the crossing risk can be managed, the incentive is huge. Allowing legal applications from abroad without the Hunger Games element of having to cross by boat doesn't mean that we'll suddenly have 80% of all possible claims approved.
No but it would be high Nick which is why I have said several times that the UN Convention is no longer fit for purpose in a much more mobile world. There are literally hundreds of millions living in failed or oppressive states that would qualify for asylum in the UK or any other Convention country. We simply cannot take them all which is why we try so hard to stop them coming in the first place.
We should remember that Jenrick thinks an alternative plan is sending asylum seekers to Iraq . Braverman might be gone but the odious Jenrick remains .
Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?
- Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive - some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks - Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner - Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen - Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen - cross fingers and hope for the best?
Have lots of barges in the middle of the channel, all who arrive get shipped there to be processed.
Leave the ECHR, tell Ireland that if they complain the RAF won’t protect them any more, ship these poor people out to Rwanda. Do it with the Danes and Germans so it confuses the idiot Remainers. Sorted. No more boats and no more deaths in the Med or the Channel - win win
In the end the answer will have to be something like this - it’s the only thing that has ever worked
Or a government gets really honest and says to the. British people - there is nothing we can do. Millions will come. That’s it
Good luck with that
I imagine there are some Tories who will be rather relieved to hand this over to Starmer. He will face the exact same intractable issues
This ruling is the perfect opportunity for Sunak and Cleverly to chart an entirely new course on illegal immigration and leave Braverman where she belongs as a toxic unpleasant individual who failed in her job and when sacked produced a letter full of bile and inferred blackmail that the only question is why if she felt this way had she not resigned before
Sunak to speak on Rwanda at 4.45
And I apparently am now under 3 specialists addressing my health issues all of whom I have confidence in and that hopefully they can be addressed medically rather than surgically
The management may be second rate (is that too kind?), but they have first rate egos, and draw first rate salaries.
I think the Post Office had/have the same problem as Suella Braverman.
They are both arrogant and ignorant, that's a toxic mix.
Could also be said of the DfE, DfT, OFQUAL, OFSTED, the Treasury, the DoH, Oxford University's History faculty, the people running the MA in public policy at Birkbeck...
It's a long list of people involved in running our country and not in a good way.
I am coming to the conclusion the biggest problem in this country is people vastly overestimate their abilities, particularly those in senior positions.
That's because they mostly went to private schools. The rot starts there.
This is just blind prejudice.
You could wipe out every private school in the country (and bear in mind there are many different types, specialist, international, progressive, religious and traditional) and it wouldn't change this one jot.
Rubbish, we have a bunch of chinless duffers running the show, there due to money and old boy network rather than talent.
It's remarkable that so many people still believe this.
It's a good job you ascribe to the lab leak theory, or you'd be shitting yourself at this point. Diseased little creatures.
Are you going to SR and PP on this trip? I'm going in Feb so looking for some tips, have booked flights (to BKK) but no accommodation or transfers yet.
Court suggests that even if UK were to pull out of *all* international treaties the scheme may still be illegal. Suggests non-refoulment is "a principle of customary international law" binding regardless of treaties
So we literally have no control of our borders even if we leave every treaty thanks to some international underlying law that blah blah
What fucking nonsense. We are sovereign. We decide for ourselves. What’s gonna happen if we break this hitherto unknown “customary international law”. Who is going to prosecute. Who cares
Supreme Court pres currently making clear it's not *just* the ECHR that applies to this: there are other treaties, including the UN refugee convention, which need to be respected under intl' law
Oh, what a tangled web we've weaved.
The whole edifice of post-WW2 treaties needs to go.
Basically, there's a whole lot that's built up that only makes sense in theory or if it's only exercised in small/modest numbers. It doesn't otherwise.
But, strong political leadership is needed to fix it. Instead, what I fear we'll get, is a wholesale attack on the courts.
Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
A response isn't enough.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forward
So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.
As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.
Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.
Do you know why our acceptance rate is multiple times that of other countries, is it down to fact that they don't get processed for years and so hard to then turf them out.
Supreme Court pres currently making clear it's not *just* the ECHR that applies to this: there are other treaties, including the UN refugee convention, which need to be respected under intl' law
Oh, what a tangled web we've weaved.
The whole edifice of post-WW2 treaties needs to go.
Hello Vladimir, surprised you have time to post on PB.
Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
A response isn't enough.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
Of course you’re right. And Braverman - for all her faults - was one of vanishingly few politicians to come out and say this: she said it in New York
But that makes her a Nazi who must be sacked. It is profoundly ridiculous - and also dangerous
Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
It's quite possible that Sunak thought he'd better sack Braverman before the judgement just in case she says or does something really over-the-top in response.
So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.
As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.
Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.
Do you know why our acceptance rate is multiple times that of other countries, is it down to fact that they don't get processed for years and so hard to then turf them out.
Is it Malcolm? I don't know the statistics for it. But if you are from Iran, for example, and are gay then you are at risk of serious oppression including risk to life. That's roughly 10% of the population of Iran for a starter as well as a large number who will inevitably try it on.
The management may be second rate (is that too kind?), but they have first rate egos, and draw first rate salaries.
I think the Post Office had/have the same problem as Suella Braverman.
They are both arrogant and ignorant, that's a toxic mix.
Could also be said of the DfE, DfT, OFQUAL, OFSTED, the Treasury, the DoH, Oxford University's History faculty, the people running the MA in public policy at Birkbeck...
It's a long list of people involved in running our country and not in a good way.
I am coming to the conclusion the biggest problem in this country is people vastly overestimate their abilities, particularly those in senior positions.
That's because they mostly went to private schools. The rot starts there.
I doubt if they *mostly* went there. Certainly not the boneheads of the NCB, mentioned in the header.
More, the problem is unwillingness to take responsibility. When something goes wrong, the official response is (a) deny responsibility (b) organise the cover up.
No, the Privately educated dominate our establishment, including the medical profession.
The management may be second rate (is that too kind?), but they have first rate egos, and draw first rate salaries.
I think the Post Office had/have the same problem as Suella Braverman.
They are both arrogant and ignorant, that's a toxic mix.
Could also be said of the DfE, DfT, OFQUAL, OFSTED, the Treasury, the DoH, Oxford University's History faculty, the people running the MA in public policy at Birkbeck...
It's a long list of people involved in running our country and not in a good way.
I am coming to the conclusion the biggest problem in this country is people vastly overestimate their abilities, particularly those in senior positions.
That's because they mostly went to private schools. The rot starts there.
I doubt if they *mostly* went there. Certainly not the boneheads of the NCB, mentioned in the header.
More, the problem is unwillingness to take responsibility. When something goes wrong, the official response is (a) deny responsibility (b) organise the cover up.
No, the Privately educated dominate our establishment, including the medical profession.
The problem is much simpler.
Certainly the dominant culture on PB of privately educated men doesn't want to accept that the system that they benefited personally from is a large part of the problem of entitlement.
Read the header.
The same pattern can be seen in many, many places. The NCB was run by the very opposite of the private educated - yet they were captured by the same mentality we see causing the problems time and again.
Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
A response isn't enough.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forward
I do wonder if other countries might pick it up, I expect if Macron implemented the policy - France's judiciary with it's napoleonic law system would probably have no issue.
Thoughts on the next stop the boats policy now Rwanda is gone (and Rwanda was never going to fix things alone)?
- Offshore processing - not permanent relocation - somewhere? Expensive - some kind of physical barrier / pushback? Humanitarian risks - Spend shed loads with France and tighten up policing? Probably effective but a slow burner - Process claims at source / in France? Not going to happen - Join Schengen so people can come legally on large boats and trains? Not going to happen - cross fingers and hope for the best?
Make it easier to enter UK legitimately so no need for boats and then process vey quickly so no need for hotels. Identify barriers to fast processing and remove them. It's not rocket science.
This is in fact Labour policy (I heard Stephen Kinnock on it in very similar terms).
We never deport anyone. If we do lefties start weeping on planes
That said, at some point soon a western nation WILL start deportations on a massive scale. It could be America under Trump. Or Sweden or Austria maybe
"Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.
I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.
The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.
The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.
They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.
Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.
You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.
Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."
The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again
And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world
And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?
If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.
In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:
Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?
International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are: - Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza? - If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate? - If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?
FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.
We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.
Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.
The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
All of that is pretty much what Israel is currently doing already. The bombing has mostly stopped, which is why the death toll is climbing much more slowly than it has been, and the primary focus of the ground troops has been on the tunnels for a couple of weeks now.
That makes sense. So Israel should declare an end to the bombing and adhere to it. That would take the heat out of the calls for a ceasefire.
It's cute that you still believe the calls for a ceasefire have anything to do humanitarian concerns.
Israel's still using its air force and navy as strategic support for the ground troops where necessary - it's just that ground troops are now everywhere in Northern Gaza, so obviously it isn't dropping as much ordnance as it has been.
If the Government is looking for a workaround, the trick is to ensure that they are intercepted by Royal Navy ships before they hit UK dry land/shore. That way they never fall under UK jurisdiction and the SC writ doesn't hold sway to ships at sea.
I also need to point out that the US are decommissioning thirty-odd nearly-new Littoral Command Ships because they don't have the range for long-range combat
A combination of helicopters and 30-odd LCSs should be more that enough to set up a 24-hr conveyor from UK to Rwanda/wherever, with intercept/processing/first-aid/disembarkation without ever falling under SC jurisdiction.
Taking that seriously for a moment , I don't think that even our landlocked Civil Servants are crazy enough to fall for it, TBH.
The LCS programme has been such a disaster that it has been cancelled before even getting properly started (and has been kept afloat by Congress in the teeth of USN opposition). They have crews of 70 and operating costs in excess of £50-60 million per ship per year.
The USA are looking for a rich, but stupid, mark to palm them off onto.
It would be a worse deal than 25-year-old moth-eaten destroyers for bases done in 1940.
"Some observations from 24 hours on the ground in Israel.
I hadn’t fully understood how much the country had so profoundly changed.
The horrors of October 7 were much worse than I had imagined and have been reported.
The resolve of the Israeli people and willingness to do what is necessary to defeat this unimaginable evil is much greater than I had expected.
They are deeply appreciative of American support. But committed to do what they have to do regardless of that support. They are prepared to pay a much higher price than ever before.
Nothing will be the same again. Israel will emerge stronger under a new leadership and a new generation.
You cannot appreciate any of this until you’re here and look in their eyes. It’s like nothing I’ve ever seen.
Khamenei, Hamas and Hezbollah have awakened something that they will live to regret. And many of these monsters won’t live to even experience that regret."
The Israelis are going to grind Gaza into dust. Make it uninhabitable. They don't care what America says, they won't care what anyone says. They might easily kill 50,000 or even 100,000 Gazans. They want to exterminate Hamas and its supporters to to the extent Gaza will never produce a fighting force ever again
And they've only just started. Who knows what this means for the world
And you wonder why people feel the need to protest against it?
If only they'd also protested against Hamas's evil actions on 7/10. But no.
In fact, too many people are in denial about what happened then; a new form of Holocaust denial.
Time for another bar chart, me thinks. Y-axis starts at zero:
Do you want to do one for British and German deaths in WW2 as well?
International law rightly regulates how states conduct wars but it places no upper limit on the number of casualties that can be caused; just on the circumstances in which they can be caused. The key questions are: - Did Israel have a legitimate reason to carry out a war against Gaza? - If so, are Israel's war aims legitimate and proportionate? - If so, are the means of conducting the war legitimate to those war aims?
FWIW, I think that some Israeli actions probably have been in breach of international law, and that irrespective of whether they were legal or not, they were ill-advised in terms of diplomatic consequence and global opinion.
We could also ask whether the war aims are achievable - but that would be a question of politics and military analysis, not law.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of war. It is not revenge where you are allowed to inflict proportional damage and then have to stop; it is not a computer game or sport, where the actions form some kind of penalty following a foul. War is the enforcement of policy by force, and can continue - within international law - until those policy goals are met.
I am not in favour of an immediate ceasefire but I am in favour of an immediate end to the bombing.
Hamas are in 300 miles of tunnels on at least four levels (like a very large coal mine). Bombing residential properties, refugee camps, hospitals hardly touches the Hamas tunnels but kills thousands of innocents.
The IDF should focus on the tunnels and the supporting ventilation and power supplies in order to achieve their policy goal, even though this risks the 200+ hostages.
it's worth noting that the use of human shields is itself a war crime, whether foreign hostages (also a war crime other than the soldiers, though rules still apply on how and where they're held), or domestic civilians.
There is no doubt that Hamas are guilty of war crimes.
The question for Israel is how best to neutralise Hamas both legally and morally. Bombing is not the best way. It might be legal but it's not moral and for Israel it risks losing international support.
But they need to keep fighting Hamas and fix the tunnels. That's where Hamas is, and there aren't many civilians in the tunnels.
And how do they get to the tunnels? It's not a simple solution without control of the ground, which in turn means a lot of urban fighting, which in turn means a lot of civilian casualties if Hamas is going to contest Israel's advance (which of course they are).
Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
A response isn't enough.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forward
I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.
If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.
Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
A response isn't enough.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forward
I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.
If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.
Doubt that'll happen, don't forget most of the UN ARE the poorer countries. Far more chance of cogent EU action than UN.
Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
A response isn't enough.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forward
I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.
If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.
Sounds like how Israel started, except that the land wasn't empty.
The problem isn’t the governments intention to try and tackle illegal migration.
The problem is that this as a policy was full of holes and designed for headlines rather than as a workable policy.
There are many routes open to the government to tackle illegal migration. Properly resourcing the border force would be a good start. Working with international partners whose borders these people cross to get here would be another. Clarifying and tweaking the law rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater may assist in certain cases. Putting in place a quick and efficient processing/asylum/justice system would mean decisions would be made quicker.
The government don’t want to do all that, because it’s not catchy, too difficult, and draws attention to the chronic underfunding and mismanagement of the system that they have presided over.
I am not suggesting these are quick fixes, but let’s not pretend that Rwanda was ever going to be a magic wand.
So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.
As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.
Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.
I said here, literally years ago, that assylum processing centres should be overseas, but that successful claimants should be granted assylum in the UK. I don't understand why this seems to be sinking in to politicians so slowly.
Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
A response isn't enough.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forward
I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.
If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.
Doubt that'll happen, don't forget most of the UN ARE the poorer countries. Far more chance of cogent EU action than UN.
To go further, this probably was the real tragedy of leaving the EU. Our interests on issues like this are far more in common with our neighbours than anything global. Perhaps we should have left the UN instead.
Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
A response isn't enough.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forward
I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.
If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.
Doubt that'll happen, don't forget most of the UN ARE the poorer countries. Far more chance of cogent EU action than UN.
I suspect that the European countries will have to at least threaten to unilaterally withdraw from the UN agreements.
I don’t know off hand if the USA ever ratified them in the first place, given their dislike of such international agreement on anything, but they currently have the biggest refugee problem, with sometimes tens of thousands per day arriving from Mexico.
This is why the UK is a great place for international business.
They know our judiciary will put the government back in their box when appropriate.
She can always run for the leadership on a platform of abolishing them ?
But as far as mainstream politics is concerned, she's a busted flush.
She really isn’t. She’s cleverly detached herself from this - just in time. And she’s detached herself from a guaranteed lost election. She can blame everyone but herself
She is now the standard bearer of the right and any candidate will need her on board - if she doesn’t win herself
The management may be second rate (is that too kind?), but they have first rate egos, and draw first rate salaries.
I think the Post Office had/have the same problem as Suella Braverman.
They are both arrogant and ignorant, that's a toxic mix.
Could also be said of the DfE, DfT, OFQUAL, OFSTED, the Treasury, the DoH, Oxford University's History faculty, the people running the MA in public policy at Birkbeck...
It's a long list of people involved in running our country and not in a good way.
I am coming to the conclusion the biggest problem in this country is people vastly overestimate their abilities, particularly those in senior positions.
That's because they mostly went to private schools. The rot starts there.
I doubt if they *mostly* went there. Certainly not the boneheads of the NCB, mentioned in the header.
More, the problem is unwillingness to take responsibility. When something goes wrong, the official response is (a) deny responsibility (b) organise the cover up.
No, the Privately educated dominate our establishment, including the medical profession.
If the Government is looking for a workaround, the trick is to ensure that they are intercepted by Royal Navy ships before they hit UK dry land/shore. That way they never fall under UK jurisdiction and the SC writ doesn't hold sway to ships at sea.
I also need to point out that the US are decommissioning thirty-odd nearly-new Littoral Command Ships because they don't have the range for long-range combat
A combination of helicopters and 30-odd LCSs should be more that enough to set up a 24-hr conveyor from UK to Rwanda/wherever, with intercept/processing/first-aid/disembarkation without ever falling under SC jurisdiction.
Taking that seriously for a moment , I don't think that even our landlocked Civil Servants are crazy enough to fall for it, TBH.
The LCS programme has been such a disaster that it has been cancelled before even getting properly started (and has been kept afloat by Congress in the teeth of USN opposition). They have crews of 70 and operating costs in excess of £50-60 million per ship per year.
The USA are looking for a rich, but stupid, mark to palm them off onto.
It would be a worse deal than 25-year-old moth-eaten destroyers for bases done in 1940.
Think historically.
Hire the Libyan Coastguard to patrol the Channel.
Any migrants they kidnap will be taken back to Libya, and imprisoned there. For Libyan farmers to bid on their labour - literally auctioned in the town square.
Unlawful. As I predicted. No doubt there will be a gnashing of teeth on the right and the chance used to attack the ECHR but hopefully a much more measured response from Cleverly than we would have got from Braverman.
A response isn't enough.
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
Ultimately it is a matter affecting the whole of Europe and cooperation with European countries should be the way forward
I suspect that the only way this resolves itself, is for the countries most affected to get together, buy or lease a large piece of empty land somewhere, and build a refugee city that includes ways for the refugees to gain skills, and from where they can ultimately leave to places where those skills satisfy normal immigration criteria.
If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.
Sounds like how Israel started, except that the land wasn't empty.
I did actually think about mentioning Israel, and yes it’s not a bad comparison - except that, as you note, the land was disputed and there’s been war there continually ever since.
Ukraine, yes remember that place! Looks as if something is happening on the east bank of the Dnipro River. Ukranian's sound optimistic but have thrown a general silence around the situation, something they normally do when they are advancing..
The rest of it is a * up. We've all suffered enough. Let's have a GE now!
Unfortunately it's only days since he blew up his pledge to reduce NHS waiting lists, by only giving the NHS supplementary funding of £100m when they said they needed £2bn.
Supreme Court pres currently making clear it's not *just* the ECHR that applies to this: there are other treaties, including the UN refugee convention, which need to be respected under intl' law
Oh, what a tangled web we've weaved.
The whole edifice of post-WW2 treaties needs to go.
Well I've got five minutes before lunch. Will that be enough time d'ya'think? Or will it perhaps take a bit more than that?
Tory right-wing MPs now pushing for emergency legislation to be tabled within days to make the Rwanda scheme work - arguing that parliamentary sovereignty trumps any ruling from Supreme Court.
The management may be second rate (is that too kind?), but they have first rate egos, and draw first rate salaries.
I think the Post Office had/have the same problem as Suella Braverman.
They are both arrogant and ignorant, that's a toxic mix.
Could also be said of the DfE, DfT, OFQUAL, OFSTED, the Treasury, the DoH, Oxford University's History faculty, the people running the MA in public policy at Birkbeck...
It's a long list of people involved in running our country and not in a good way.
I am coming to the conclusion the biggest problem in this country is people vastly overestimate their abilities, particularly those in senior positions.
That's because they mostly went to private schools. The rot starts there.
I doubt if they *mostly* went there. Certainly not the boneheads of the NCB, mentioned in the header.
More, the problem is unwillingness to take responsibility. When something goes wrong, the official response is (a) deny responsibility (b) organise the cover up.
No, the Privately educated dominate our establishment, including the medical profession.
If the Government is looking for a workaround, the trick is to ensure that they are intercepted by Royal Navy ships before they hit UK dry land/shore. That way they never fall under UK jurisdiction and the SC writ doesn't hold sway to ships at sea.
I also need to point out that the US are decommissioning thirty-odd nearly-new Littoral Command Ships because they don't have the range for long-range combat
A combination of helicopters and 30-odd LCSs should be more that enough to set up a 24-hr conveyor from UK to Rwanda/wherever, with intercept/processing/first-aid/disembarkation without ever falling under SC jurisdiction.
Taking that seriously for a moment , I don't think that even our landlocked Civil Servants are crazy enough to fall for it, TBH.
The LCS programme has been such a disaster that it has been cancelled before even getting properly started (and has been kept afloat by Congress in the teeth of USN opposition). They have crews of 70 and operating costs in excess of £50-60 million per ship per year.
The USA are looking for a rich, but stupid, mark to palm them off onto.
It would be a worse deal than 25-year-old moth-eaten destroyers for bases done in 1940.
Think historically.
Hire the Libyan Coastguard to patrol the Channel.
Any migrants they kidnap will be taken back to Libya, and imprisoned there. For Libyan farmers to bid on their labour - literally auctioned in the town square.
We might get a decent deal on the "Libyan Coastguard rebadged as unofficial militia" now that aiui the European Commission no longer employ them.
Ukraine, yes remember that place! Looks as if something is happening on the east bank of the Dnipro River. Ukranian's sound optimistic but have thrown a general silence around the situation, something they normally do when they are advancing..
Last I heard is Ukraine controls Krynki and are looking to expand the bridgehead.
The Tory nutjobs now want to ignore UN conventions. Where does it end .
I think its entirely reasonable to take stock of how the world has changed from 1945 to 2023. I have little doubt that many of those trying to reach Britain have a legal right to asylum. I also have little doubt that many of those trying to reach Britain have no such claim but are trying for a better life for themselves. A more mature debate might look at how best to use such people, who are by their nature the kind of people you want (aspirational, looking to improve their lot). Instead we end up stopping people working and pay huge amounts to house them to do nothing. Its madness.
But we also have to acknowledge that you cannot simply say - everyone who want to come, can. The rights of the people of the UK have to be involved in the discussion too.
So if the Rwanda policy was for the UK to process asylum claims for people to come to the UK in Rwanda, with successful claimants brought back to the UK, then the government would have been given the go ahead.
As we keep pointing out, the Rwanda plan is incomparable to any other proposal or implementation elsewhere because it is a one way trip. And that has been ruled screamingly illegal on a variety of fronts.
Yep, that is the key point. Unfortunately the roughly 80% success rate of asylum applications means that allowing them back into the UK would massively reduce the deterrence factor. So much so that I would suggest it would not be worth it. But it wouldn't surprise me if the government did something like this if only to save a little face.
Do you know why our acceptance rate is multiple times that of other countries, is it down to fact that they don't get processed for years and so hard to then turf them out.
Is it Malcolm? I don't know the statistics for it. But if you are from Iran, for example, and are gay then you are at risk of serious oppression including risk to life. That's roughly 10% of the population of Iran for a starter as well as a large number who will inevitably try it on.
Tory right-wing MPs now pushing for emergency legislation to be tabled within days to make the Rwanda scheme work - arguing that parliamentary sovereignty trumps any ruling from Supreme Court.
BREAKING As many as six Conservative MPs are set to submit letters of no confidence in Rishi Sunak’s leadership of the Conservative Party this week, rebel Tory MP Dame Andrea Jenkyns tells @GBNEWS. Tune in now.
The absurdity of Brexit neatly encapsulated in the words Dame Andrea Jenkyns
Lee Anderson says ministers should go ahead and “put planes in the air” to Rwanda anyway.
When I asked if he was suggesting ignoring the Supreme Court ruling, the Tory deputy chairman said govt should “ignore the laws and send them straight back”.
If the Government is looking for a workaround, the trick is to ensure that they are intercepted by Royal Navy ships before they hit UK dry land/shore. That way they never fall under UK jurisdiction and the SC writ doesn't hold sway to ships at sea.
Does it? British law still applies to British flagged vessels in territorial waters. Suranne Jones had to solve that murder on a submarine.
It's not like the glory days of the RN when the Admiralty used to wait for low tide at Wapping to hang larrikins in the intertidal zone beyond landlubber law.
The UK should pay Wagner to intercept them on Russian flagged vessels, house the fugees on clapped out cruise ships then sail them off to who-gives-a-fuck-where.
Tory right-wing MPs now pushing for emergency legislation to be tabled within days to make the Rwanda scheme work - arguing that parliamentary sovereignty trumps any ruling from Supreme Court.
Clearly they didn't listen to the judgment which expanded it beyond the ECHR and by all 5 judges unanimously
Tory right-wing MPs now pushing for emergency legislation to be tabled within days to make the Rwanda scheme work - arguing that parliamentary sovereignty trumps any ruling from Supreme Court.
Comments
He can be Sir Jason Beer KC, when the PO management end up in prison.
On looking at the Supreme Court's reasoning, I think it would have decided the case differently if asylum cases were being processed in Rwanda rather than being transferred to Rwanda. Still ludicrous, but it would have been a victory.
https://twitter.com/AlastairMeeks/status/1724738099559669946
I also need to point out that the US are decommissioning thirty-odd nearly-new Littoral Command Ships because they don't have the range for long-range combat
A combination of helicopters and 30-odd LCSs should be more that enough to set up a 24-hr conveyor from UK to Rwanda/wherever, with intercept/processing/first-aid/disembarkation without ever falling under SC jurisdiction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship
Imagine her having to face the cameras as Home Secretary today...
If only there was an organisation that we could be a member of that might give us some clout to try and get heads together on this topic?
She is now the standard bearer of the right and any candidate will need her on board - if she doesn’t win herself
DUH
The question for Israel is how best to neutralise Hamas both legally and morally. Bombing is not the best way. It might be legal but it's not moral and for Israel it risks losing international support.
But they need to keep fighting Hamas and fix the tunnels. That's where Hamas is, and there aren't many civilians in the tunnels.
By luck I took 10 years on my main one , was a bit higher at time at 2.4% but turned out to be great decision.
DUH indeed.
Ah. My gin and tonic has arrived
How do we control our borders?
The existing web of law and treaties isn't fit for purpose, the qualification criteria for asylum is vast, and there is no cap on numbers. Anyone who hits these shores has a very very good chance - and there's little that can be done to intercept them - and multiple routes to change their case or appeal against return. Everyone knows it's a back door for economic migration, and most people (with advice) can construct a half-decent case.
That simply isn't sustainable. And it's going to get worse.
I think I saw him declare this morning that he will carry on regardless.
That's going to end well.
How much more Jenga can he play before the whole lot collapses?
One option would be to triage asylum seekers. Put everyone with papers from a country likely to qualify into a light touch group. And yes, invest in processing people quicker.
@Smyth_Chris
Court suggests that even if UK were to pull out of *all* international treaties the scheme may still be illegal. Suggests non-refoulment is "a principle of customary international law" binding regardless of treaties
In the end the answer will have to be something like this - it’s the only thing that has ever worked
Or a government gets really honest and says to the. British people - there is nothing we can do. Millions will come. That’s it
Good luck with that
I imagine there are some Tories who will be rather relieved to hand this over to Starmer. He will face the exact same intractable issues
Sunak to speak on Rwanda at 4.45
And I apparently am now under 3 specialists addressing my health issues all of whom I have confidence in and that hopefully they can be addressed medically rather than surgically
It's absolute nonsense.
Are you going to SR and PP on this trip? I'm going in Feb so looking for some tips, have booked flights (to BKK) but no accommodation or transfers yet.
What fucking nonsense. We are sovereign. We decide for ourselves. What’s gonna happen if we break this hitherto unknown “customary international law”. Who is going to prosecute. Who cares
But, strong political leadership is needed to fix it. Instead, what I fear we'll get, is a wholesale attack on the courts.
His appointment is an act of necromancy
By Aris Roussinos"
https://unherd.com/2023/11/david-cameron-destroyed-the-tories/
The Supreme’s Court decision on Rwanda means the policy is effectively at an end. No planes will be leaving and we now need to move forward.
But that makes her a Nazi who must be sacked. It is profoundly ridiculous - and also dangerous
Things didn't go entirely to plan, as she caught a flight back again.
The same pattern can be seen in many, many places. The NCB was run by the very opposite of the private educated - yet they were captured by the same mentality we see causing the problems time and again.
That said, at some point soon a western nation WILL start deportations on a massive scale. It could be America under Trump. Or Sweden or Austria maybe
Israel's still using its air force and navy as strategic support for the ground troops where necessary - it's just that ground troops are now everywhere in Northern Gaza, so obviously it isn't dropping as much ordnance as it has been.
The LCS programme has been such a disaster that it has been cancelled before even getting properly started (and has been kept afloat by Congress in the teeth of USN opposition). They have crews of 70 and operating costs in excess of £50-60 million per ship per year.
The USA are looking for a rich, but stupid, mark to palm them off onto.
It would be a worse deal than 25-year-old moth-eaten destroyers for bases done in 1940.
Ok I achieved my inflation pledge
1 out of 5 ain't bad as Meatloaf nearly said
The rest of it is a * up. We've all suffered enough. Let's have a GE now!
If this means that the UN conventions and treaties need to be updated, then pressure needs to be applied to update the UN conventions and treaties.
The problem isn’t the governments intention to try and tackle illegal migration.
The problem is that this as a policy was full of holes and designed for headlines rather than as a workable policy.
There are many routes open to the government to tackle illegal migration. Properly resourcing the border force would be a good start. Working with international partners whose borders these people cross to get here would be another. Clarifying and tweaking the law rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater may assist in certain cases. Putting in place a quick and efficient processing/asylum/justice system would mean decisions would be made quicker.
The government don’t want to do all that, because it’s not catchy, too difficult, and draws attention to the chronic underfunding and mismanagement of the system that they have presided over.
I am not suggesting these are quick fixes, but let’s not pretend that Rwanda was ever going to be a magic wand.
I don’t know off hand if the USA ever ratified them in the first place, given their dislike of such international agreement on anything, but they currently have the biggest refugee problem, with sometimes tens of thousands per day arriving from Mexico.
Hire the Libyan Coastguard to patrol the Channel.
Any migrants they kidnap will be taken back to Libya, and imprisoned there. For Libyan farmers to bid on their labour - literally auctioned in the town square.
...
🚨 Ex Cabinet minister Simon Clarke suggests he could submit a letter in Rishi Sunak over Rwanda.
Says the PM's response to ruling it is a 'confidence issue in his judgement as Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative Party'
Tory right-wing MPs now pushing for emergency legislation to be tabled within days to make the Rwanda scheme work - arguing that parliamentary sovereignty trumps any ruling from Supreme Court.
But we also have to acknowledge that you cannot simply say - everyone who want to come, can. The rights of the people of the UK have to be involved in the discussion too.
BREAKING As many as six Conservative MPs are set to submit letters of no confidence in Rishi Sunak’s leadership of the Conservative Party this week, rebel Tory MP Dame Andrea Jenkyns tells @GBNEWS. Tune in now.
The absurdity of Brexit neatly encapsulated in the words Dame Andrea Jenkyns
Lee Anderson says ministers should go ahead and “put planes in the air” to Rwanda anyway.
When I asked if he was suggesting ignoring the Supreme Court ruling, the Tory deputy chairman said govt should “ignore the laws and send them straight back”.
It's not like the glory days of the RN when the Admiralty used to wait for low tide at Wapping to hang larrikins in the intertidal zone beyond landlubber law.
The UK should pay Wagner to intercept them on Russian flagged vessels, house the fugees on clapped out cruise ships then sail them off to who-gives-a-fuck-where.