Supreme court rejects Rishi Sunak’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda
Supreme court rejects Rishi Sunak’s plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda
Judges uphold appeal court ruling over risk to deported refugees and deals blow to PM’s ‘stop the boats’ strategy
Time for Starmer to start explaining to people exactly what leaving the ECHR entails. Nip this BS in the bud before they fester the narrative to con people.
Sunak is already laying the groundwork for a withdrawal, within hours of the court ruling he has been talking about changing laws and "revisiting international relationships".
I think this could become a big battleground approaching the election, for the worst possible reasons.
We're not going to leave the ECHR. Sunak knows it's daft to do so, but like everything to do with politician statements on migration, it's all about sounding good and doing absolutely nothing.
Aye I watched PMQs also. He mentioned it in the opening statement, and then used a stool to ask the question so he could reiterate the point. Pretty stupid imo. Starmer has to get this message across as to why it is extremely bad for the people of the UK to leave the ECHR.
I will ofc be writing to my MP.
This is the first time I actually read the argument that won at the appeals court: basically it says that Rwanda is in fact not doing a good job under the Refugee convention at the moment and so there's too high a risk of them screwing up on the UK's agreement. This sounds very reasonable, though it does mean that if Rwanda sort their act out, or if the government finds a new partner who does not have a record of refoulement, this will be back on the table. I suppose that raises the question of how serious an issue that would be; in my mind besides the practical issue there is the belief that the government has pushed this legislation to draw on the prejudices of their voters by creating a plan which can be billed as "we're sending the unwanted hordes to some horrible country in Africa - yes, you know, one with a genocide."
It seems like we're ill-equipped to deal with this latter kind of accusation - certainly I don't think we can argue that it's illegal, but also I don't see that we have any real way to convince people it's a bad basis on which to make policy if they kind of like the idea.
Tories are talking about tabling new legislation (even without withdrawing from the EHCR) so presumably the plan is not actually dead. I don't know how it can be resumed even with "narrow legislation" as they said but that latter problem will still be there whatever form it comes in.
A 'resignation' just in time to ensure the headline wasn't "Supreme court rejects Suella Braverman's plan"
I know - it's so bloody predictable, isn't it?
Why Rwanda?
I wager that was just chosen on the basis that Rwanda was happy to be paid to have a UK-run asylum centre in their country. Basically the UK is trying to pull a Denmark in terms of how it handles asylym seekers.
Because it sounds horrible and appeals to the kind of arsehole that still votes Tory in spite of gestures to everything
Well that's a whoopsie good job he has a strong gover.......oh wait nevermind
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Rishi Sunak’s key immigration policy has been dealt a blow after the UK’s highest court rejected the government’s plans to deport people seeking asylum to Rwanda.
Five judges at the supreme court upheld an appeal court ruling on Wednesday, which found that there was a real risk of deported refugees having their claims in the east African country wrongly assessed or being returned to their country of origin to face persecution.
The government claimed that the Rwandan scheme would be a key deterrent for growing numbers of asylum seekers reaching the UK via small boats travelling across the Channel – a claim that has been rejected by refugee charities.
The ruling come the day after the sacked home secretary, Suella Braverman, released an incendiary letter accusing the prime minister of breaking an agreement to insert clauses into UK law that would have “blocked off” legal challenges under the European convention on human rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act.
Braverman said Sunak had no “credible plan B” and warned: “If we lose in the supreme court, an outcome that I have consistently argued we must be prepared for, you will have wasted a year and an act of parliament, only to arrive back at square one.”
Sir John Hayes, a close ally of Braverman, said on Tuesday that in the event of losing, ministers should table a narrow piece of legislation to enact the Rwanda plan before Christmas, and later include withdrawing from the ECHR in the Tory election manifesto.
The original article contains 295 words, the summary contains 250 words. Saved 15%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I'm so pissed that after we booted that sack of shit out of power, Tony Abbott has successfully managed to just transfer to the UK instead. They haven't even bothered changing the slogan.
The tomorrow's headlines in Murdoch's media:
10 bullshit reasons why we should scrap human rights.
I'm surprised Murdoch hasn't switched sides yet. It seems obvious that Sunak's not a winner.
The Murdoch empire is currently undergoing a transition of power from Rupert to his son Lachlan, and fighting a lot of legal battles in the US. Perhaps they are too distracted from their UK relationships for now, or hedging in case the Tories do finally pull a living rabbit out of the hat.