New Tory Leader

[Barbe bleu 832]

4 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Rishi Sunak starts by saying he does not agree with the supreme court decision, but he “accepts it and respects it”.He says the rule of law is fundamental in this country. The government will agree a new treaty with Rwanda, he says. But he says he will introduce emergency legislation. This will assert that Rwanda is safe, he says.

This is Alice in Wonderland stuff: “When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

You can't say the rule of law  is a fundamental concept and "accept" the Supreme Court ruling, which is entirely based on a stack of unimpeachable evidence that Rwanda is very much unsafe, and then just declare it safe. You just look like a complete moron.

You might not like a system that allows parliament to over rule courts in this manner but that is exactly what our system allows

I was surprised that the government let it go to a hearing, they could have done this before and saved a lot of bother.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

Perhaps its just the Government's way of saving money on recruitment but It seems unlikely to me that anyone arriving here in a small boat from Calais has been invited to come and work in the NHS.

 

That wasn't what I was saying. I am curious to know what prevents the boat people from staying other than the obvious reason that we cannot just open our coastline to anyone to sneak in. When they are processed, is there just a simple process other than the refugee status that some may well have?

Is there further investigation into the backgrounds of these people to see if they not only meet the safety criteria but could be useful in employment areas that are willfully short? Apart from the language problem, can these people be taught to be waiters or waitresses for example where we have real shortages.

Surely paying taxes and NI and spending their money here is preferable to us spending money on them in Rwanda.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

16 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

You might not like a system that allows parliament to over rule courts in this manner but that is exactly what our system allows

I was surprised that the government let it go to a hearing, they could have done this before and saved a lot of bother.

Since the advent of the Supreme Court, the ability of Parliament to overrule the courts is now only a theory. In theory, Parliament is Sovereign, but has abrogated that in instances such as the Human Rights Act.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

20 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

You might not like a system that allows parliament to over rule courts in this manner but that is exactly what our system allows

I was surprised that the government let it go to a hearing, they could have done this before and saved a lot of bother.

But there is a difference between changing the law on something, so the law is different, and simply declaring Rwanda is safe without changing the law on what constitutes safeness, or without changing the law so safeness is not a legal consideration.

[Well b back 3,269]

I voted Tory, but I didn’t vote to leave treaties or to declare a country safe that are not declared safe by the UN. 
A general election should be called tonight.

 

[Daz Sparks 1,174]

48 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

You can't say the rule of law  is a fundamental concept and "accept" the Supreme Court ruling, which is entirely based on a stack of unimpeachable evidence that Rwanda is very much unsafe, and then just declare it safe. You just look like a complete moron.

This is beyond parody, they just can't accept that the craziness that this is. Just when you think it can't any more barmy, the Tories show you a new trick.

[Well b back 3,269]

If he is that desperate to get somebody on a plane to Rwanda, put f****** Braverman on one.

[Barbe bleu 832]

36 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

But there is a difference between changing the law on something, so the law is different, and simply declaring Rwanda is safe without changing the law on what constitutes safeness, or without changing the law so safeness is not a legal consideration.

I suspect that he will try to push a bill through parliament in quick time so that at the end of it there is a fully formed Act of Parliament and the changing of the law you describe. This won't just be a policy statement

[Well b back 3,269]

For a couple of minutes I am going to be serious.

The Supreme Court ruled that Rwanda was not safe. Where did they get that information, from British Intelligence, who told Rawandans not go home as they will be persecuted, and the British government who opened 3 cases against institutions claiming Rwanda safe. Also of course there were various UN reports, bizarrely backed by, yep, Britain.

So what is the plan ? To change the law to say that Rwanda is a safe country. In doing that you will have to say U.K. intelligence, the U.K. government and the UN all got it wrong ?. Maybe they can say with the UN that it was a simple mistake by our ambassador to the UN simply pressed the yes button instead of the no ?
 

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

Sunak is just trying to look tough, to pick a senseless further fight. It's what the populist right exist for, the fight not any solution. Need as always somebody else to blame.

Apart from the absurdity of Parliament simply declaring Rwanda safe he's first got to get any of this through the Lords. They are not so daft. Even then the ECHR will simply still be able to declare Rwanda unsafe even if these temporary injunctions (to allow Britsh law to play out as it now has) are clipped.

All in all, just more Tory nonsense for their ever more deluded base. Chaos is their mantra now.

[ricardo 7,396]

Theres simple answer to all this. Just get Parliament to declare the UK an unsafe country and then they can be sent back.

Problem solved 

 

 

Edited November 15, 2023 by ricardo

[littleyellowbirdie 2,577]

It depends what you consider safe. For travellers, it's the safest destination in Africa. It has been politically stable since 1994 when its now leader, Paul Kagame, led the rebellion that halted the 1994 genocide. He's very popular with Western leaders, largely on the back of not having intervened in the 1994 genocide (probably not enough marches about it throughout Europe, the Middle East, and North America).

It's a dictatorsip, LGBT people will have a hard time like in most of Africa, and political dissent is stamped on, but fundamentally it's a stable country. If the country's contracted to host UK deportees, there's no reason to believe those deported would be at risk of harm, since that would jeopardise the deal politically.

And it provides a deterrent to reduce the chance of people risking their lives crossing from France to the UK.

Edited November 15, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,819]

"It's a dictatorsip, LGBT people will have a hard time like in most of Africa, and political dissent is stamped on, but fundamentally it's a stable country."

It's not a safe destination in other words.

[Barbe bleu 832]

26 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Sunak is just trying to look tough, to pick a senseless further fight. It's what the populist right exist for, the fight not any solution. Need as always somebody else to blame.

Apart from the absurdity of Parliament simply declaring Rwanda safe he's first got to get any of this through the Lords. They are not so daft. Even then the ECHR will simply still be able to declare Rwanda unsafe even if these temporary injunctions (to allow Britsh law to play out as it now has) are clipped.

All in all, just more Tory nonsense for their ever more deluded base. Chaos is their mantra now.

ECHR might or might not say that the procedure is unlawful but it will be a decision for the government if it is obeyed or ignored as parliamentary sovereignty still applies.

If the majority of the commons wants this bad enough it will get through before the next election, regardless of what the Lords says.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,577]

21 minutes ago, Herman said:

"It's a dictatorsip, LGBT people will have a hard time like in most of Africa, and political dissent is stamped on, but fundamentally it's a stable country."

It's not a safe destination in other words.

Dictatorships aren't necessarily unsafe. Some people like dictatorships. People voluntarily go to unsafe countries. Like I said, the contract means the Rwandan government has a duty of care to those sent there.

Have to say, I'm kind of surprised he's pushing on with it after dispatching Braverman. Taking the wind out of her sails in a leadership push?

Edited November 15, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

1 hour ago, Well b back said:

For a couple of minutes I am going to be serious.

The Supreme Court ruled that Rwanda was not safe. Where did they get that information, from British Intelligence, who told Rawandans not go home as they will be persecuted, and the British government who opened 3 cases against institutions claiming Rwanda safe. Also of course there were various UN reports, bizarrely backed by, yep, Britain.

So what is the plan ? To change the law to say that Rwanda is a safe country. In doing that you will have to say U.K. intelligence, the U.K. government and the UN all got it wrong ?. Maybe they can say with the UN that it was a simple mistake by our ambassador to the UN simply pressed the yes button instead of the no ?
 

I think you may have this wrong, as does Purple Canary. The Supreme Court ruled as it did on something called befoulment. Now this is something I had never heard of before, so I was in the same boat as everybody else. The SC was concerned that the Rwanda courts might not allow migrants to stay in their country but might send them back to their original countries where they might be persecuted. It was not that the Rwandans might persecute the migrants.

 

The court’s five judges unanimously backed a judgement by the Court of Appeal that the policy was unlawful because of the “real risk” that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be returned to their own country where they could face “ill treatment” in breach of their human rights.

[TheGunnShow 5,985]

The real problem with Rwanda is that their asylum processes are very much substandard, and as was said in the verdict, the risk of refoulement was a serious problem. They might improve in the future, but at the moment, their authorities are not of a high enough standard to ensure that applications are properly accessed.

There has already been practical experience of this, an agreement between Israel and Rwanda fell apart due to such administrative reasons.

Sending asylum seekers to a third country IS lawful, but that country has to have suitable procedures already in place. Rwanda does not, and therefore it fails.

Supreme court rejects Rishi Sunak’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda | Immigration and asylum | The Guardian
 

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

ECHR might or might not say that the procedure is unlawful but it will be a decision for the government if it is obeyed or ignored as parliamentary sovereignty still applies.

If the majority of the commons wants this bad enough it will get through before the next election, regardless of what the Lords says.

My real point BB is that the government doesn't care about if it works. What it likes for purely electoral purposes is the fight to pass this. It's the journey not the destination that suits them!

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

Theres simple answer to all this. Just get Parliament to declare the UK an unsafe country and then they can be sent back.

Problem solved 

There's evidence for this as well. Look at how many people are unstable enough to consistently vote Tory...

[Well b back 3,269]

Do the Tories have 350 seats currently ?

I ask as there were only 295 votes against the ceasefire ?

Am I missing something ? Or have I got it wrong ?

Thanks

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

3 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

But there is a difference between changing the law on something, so the law is different, and simply declaring Rwanda is safe without changing the law on what constitutes safeness, or without changing the law so safeness is not a legal consideration.

A rough analogy (which doesn't actually strike me as that far-fetched, given the current government) would be this. Let's say the plan is to load the refugees into boats officially certified as unseaworthy and destined to be broken up. These unseaworthy vessels are then to be sailed into shark-infested waters in the stormy season. The Supreme Court rules against the plan, on the basis that it poses a significant risk of multiple deaths. So the government's "solution" is to legislate to declare these leaking, rusting death-traps perfectly seaworthy...😍

[Herman 9,819]

The Conservative Party.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

19 hours ago, PurpleCanary said:

But there is a difference between changing the law on something, so the law is different, and simply declaring Rwanda is safe without changing the law on what constitutes safeness, or without changing the law so safeness is not a legal consideration.

Or as former Supreme Court Justice Lord Sumption said today:

I have never heard of them trying to change the facts, by law. For as long as black isn’t white, the business of passing acts of parliament to say that it is profoundly discreditable.

I have never heard of a situation in which parliament intervenes to declare the facts – the safety or unsafety of Rwanda – to change the facts from those which have been declared by the courts to be correct.

The courts have perused hundreds of pages of documents to arrive at this conclusion. For parliament simply to say the facts are different would be constitutionally really quite extraordinary.

[TheGunnShow 5,985]

4 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Or as former Supreme Court Justice Lord Sumption said today:

I have never heard of them trying to change the facts, by law. For as long as black isn’t white, the business of passing acts of parliament to say that it is profoundly discreditable.

I have never heard of a situation in which parliament intervenes to declare the facts – the safety or unsafety of Rwanda – to change the facts from those which have been declared by the courts to be correct.

The courts have perused hundreds of pages of documents to arrive at this conclusion. For parliament simply to say the facts are different would be constitutionally really quite extraordinary.

Yep, there seems to be some confusion about the safety of Rwanda itself as a country compared to the reliability/safety of their asylum processes and the outcomes thereof.

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

9 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Yep, there seems to be some confusion about the safety of Rwanda itself as a country compared to the reliability/safety of their asylum processes and the outcomes thereof.

Indeed. It seems Rwanda is not an absolutely safe place for refugees as their final destination, and very much an unsafe place in terms of the final destinations to which it sends many of the refugees who arrive there. It was the latter point on which the Supremes mainly relied for their unanimous ruling that Rwanda was definitely not a safe place for refugees.

[horsefly 4,310]

14 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Yep, there seems to be some confusion about the safety of Rwanda itself as a country compared to the reliability/safety of their asylum processes and the outcomes thereof.

 

1 minute ago, PurpleCanary said:

Indeed. It seems Rwanda is not an absolutely safe place for refugees as their final destination, and very much an unsafe place in terms of the final destinations to which it sends many of the refugees who arrive there. It was the latter point on which the Supremes mainly relied for their unanimous ruling that Rwanda was definitely not a safe place for refugees.

It would be great if we could ask some actual independent Rwandan journalists what they think. But for some strange reason those critical of the government keep getting killed in late night car crashes (see Private Eye).

[TheGunnShow 5,985]

38 minutes ago, horsefly said:

 

It would be great if we could ask some actual independent Rwandan journalists what they think. But for some strange reason those critical of the government keep getting killed in late night car crashes (see Private Eye).

Exactly, Kagame's star has fallen rapidly. He was very much on the rise with his views on foreign aid being in line with the Dambisa Moyo school (and I often agree here too with the exception of women's education and asylum seeking) and he did deserve a lot of credit for getting Rwanda rebuilt after their dreadful civil war.

But his descent into dictatorship has turned a heck of a lot of outsiders away and soured his reputation considerably - if not irredeemably.

[Herman 9,819]

Honest Bob Jenrick. Boy, these people are rotten to the core.

 

[Pyro Pete 1,915]

We'll just have to leave the ECHR. That'll teach those foreign courts. Isn't that right, Patrick?

 

[Wings of a Sparrow 1,425]

53 minutes ago, Herman said:

Honest Bob Jenrick. Boy, these people are rotten to the core.

 

What a deluded pr.ick.