The Prime Minister has announced that he will introduce emergency legislation to send those who come to our country illegally to Rwanda. I welcome his decision, as do, I’m sure, the clear majority of the British public.
The immediate issue before us is whether the Government can send illegal migrants to a particular country in Africa.
The more fundamental question is where does ultimate authority in the United Kingdom sit? Is it with the British people and their elected representatives in Parliament? Or is it with the vague, shifting, and unaccountable concept of “international law"?
There is no reason to criticise the judges. They have merely interpreted the law of the land. The fault lies with the politicians who have failed to introduce legislation that would guarantee delivery of our Rwanda partnership.
Now is not the time to waste energy on a post-mortem of how we got here. What matters for those of us who believe in effective immigration control is how to move forward. This requires honesty.
There must be an end to spin
Above all, it demands of the Government an end to self-deception and spin. There must be no more magical thinking. Tinkering with a failed plan will not stop the boats.
Amending our agreement with Rwanda and converting it into a treaty, even with explicit obligations on non-refoulement, will not solve the fundamental issue.
We lost in the Supreme Court because the judges determined that Rwanda cannot be trusted to fulfil the commitments we asked of them on non-refoulement, not because those promises were embodied in one type of legal instrument, a memorandum, rather than another, a treaty.
To try and deliver flights to Rwanda under any new treaty would still require going back through the courts, a process that would likely take at least another year.
That process could culminate in yet another defeat, on new grounds, or on similar grounds to Wednesday: principally, that judges can’t be certain Rwanda will abide by the terms of any new treaty.
Even if we won in the domestic court, the saga would simply relocate to Strasbourg where the European court would take its time deciding if it liked our laws.
That is why the plan outlined by the PM will not yield flights to Rwanda before an election if Plan B is simply a tweaked version of the failed Plan A For emergency legislation to achieve what the PM says he wants, Parliament needs to amend the Illegal Migration Act so that it meets these five tests:
- The Bill must address the Supreme Court’s concerns regarding Rwanda
Parliament is entitled to assert that Rwanda is safe without making any changes to our Rwanda partnership. However, for substantive and presentational reasons, it would be preferable to amend that agreement to address issues identified by the judges. This could include embedding UK observers and independent reviewers of asylum decisions. It is less important whether these commitments are embodied in an amended memorandum or a new treaty. What is crucial is that they are practical steps to improve Rwanda’s asylum system. On the basis of these new commitments, Rwanda’s safety could be credibly confirmed on the face of the Bill.
- The Bill must enable flights before the next general election
Legislation must therefore circumvent the lengthy process of further domestic litigation, to ensure that flights can take off as soon as the new Bill becomes law. To do this, the Bill must exclude all avenues of legal challenge. The entirety of the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights, and other relevant international obligations, or legislation, including the Refugee Convention, must be disapplied by way of clear “notwithstanding” clauses. Judicial Review, all common law challenges, and all injunctive relief, including the suspensive challenges available under the Illegal Migration Act must be expressly excluded. Individuals would, however, be given the chance to demonstrate that they had entered the country legally, were under 18, or were medically unfit to fly – but Home Office decisions on these claims could not be challenged in court.
- Swift removal must mean swift removal
Those arriving illegally must be removed in a matter of days rather than months as under the Illegal Migration Act. This means amending the Act to ensure that removals to Rwanda are mandated under the duty to remove, with strict time limits. This will streamline the Home Office process as much as possible, so that the only Home Office decision is to determine whether an individual falls within the scheme or not.
- Those arriving here illegally must be detained
Legal challenges to detention must be excluded to avoid burdening the courts, making it clear that detention is mandated until removal.
- This must be treated as an emergency
The Bill should be introduced by Christmas recess and Parliament should be recalled to sit and debate it over the holiday period. There is no longer any chance of stopping the boats within the current legal framework.
Having committed to emergency legislation, the Prime Minister must now give Parliamentarians a clear choice: to either properly control illegal migration, or explain to the British people why they are powerless under international law and must simply accept ever greater numbers of illegal arrivals on these shores.
To do this, the Bill must exclude all avenues of legal challenge. The entirety of the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights, and other relevant international obligations, or legislation, including the Refugee Convention, must be disapplied by way of clear “notwithstanding” clauses.
This is the crux of it all. Braverman and her paymasters from 55 Tufton St. have wanted this from the start. Why do they want it; one reason is so they can unleash full abuse of the the UK. The aim of HRA is protection for the citizens of the country. Removal of this leaves the government to run rampant. There is no “The British government would not do this”, or “we can trust them”. Hindsight is showing we cannot.
Leaving the ECHR does not just affect how laws can be assaulted. It affects international agreements we have made also. The Good Friday Agreement ceases to exist if we pull out of the ECHR. Some of our trading agreements rely on our commitment to the ECHR. The TCA could cease over night. The majority of the imports into the UK would stop very quickly.
We would be thrown yet again into market turmoil. Anyone remember what Truss did? Well that would be a teddy bear’s picnic compared to the effects of this. When markets are thrown into turmoil there is money to be made betting against the currency. Braverman will make her killing this time. She will make pennies in back handers compared to the billions other will make. Meanwhile pension system that have already fallen victim to Truss will collapse completely.
She is an idiot who is willing to destroy the livelihood’s of the country so she can make a quick buck. What is worse is that the morons in the Tory party would vote it through.
what theyve realised is, the way brexit was fought was highly successful. The phrase ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ is the entire strategy not just in terms of that debate but all debate and the idea is you retain maximum negotiation power if you threaten to just leave the table. But shes going one further and actually trying to unpick the founding principle legal works which underpin treaties and international agreements, for the sake of maybe 200 people to be flown to Rwanda initially but down the line it will be used as a strategy for any future government on a subject and further other countries will begin to adopt it.
They do not care about the refugees or the people that make money from them. This is just an excuse for an ulterior motive.
yes thats what im saying. its a government that fundamentally does not believe in or understand government. Ultimately on this issue, the free market principles they bang on about will lead to totally uncontrolled immigration because there will be no agreements in such an ideology. only those humans which generate tax revenue like tourists, footballers, oligarchs, middle classes and professionals like doctors and generally people who are not fleeing the very countries we bomb the living shit out of at regular intervals or from countries we support who force their own populations to flee. The end game is good value immigration not expensive immigration as the guiding principle, not wether they have a genuine case, not wether they are being hunted or preyed on, and not if they have to sit in a shithole hotel for years while the home office dosnt process the visas so they can work.
and on that note, not at you specificially @Syldon@feddit.uk please consider a donation to Crisis https://www.crisis.org.uk/ while you stuff a box of mince pies in your cakehole this weekend
Braverman publishes her first article since getting sacked in which she attacks the PM and sets out her own 5-point plan for immigration (I know, it’s the Telegraph. But that’s where she has set it out, text is included so you don’t have to give them clicks).
It does seem more and more like she was deliberately trying to get sacked.
Definitely. This is her manifesto for Leader for all of the membership, plus giving something for her supporters to get behind and use as a stick to beat Sunak.
For me all doubt was removed by her final tweet as HS on the Sunday evening. I think up till that point RIshi was still dithering over sacking her, as he is so weak.
deleted by creator
parliamentary sovereignty is absolute. This is the basic concept of the UK constitutional monocracy. But our governments sovereignty is not. It is managed by parliament. The 2 are not the same thing.
The UK parliament is like the US congress. Made up of 650 MPs. Our government is a little like your white house. But made up of a cabinet selected by the party in control of parliament.
Parliament is the check on the power of government. And to a lesser extent lords is the check on parliament but more as a administrative role than legal.
