So, what now? Find somewhere else to send them, like Rockall? Do a Henry VIII and withdraw from everything you don't like so you can do your own thing?
And having spent £140m on Rwanda, any chance of a refund? Thought not.
The UK courts have ruled based on UK law - withdrawal from human rights conventions won't change that law.
The "somewhere else" option requires there being somewhere else that isn't already receiving lots of asylum seekers ... and it's going to be difficult to find such a nation where the lack of asylum seekers isn't because that's not a safe place.
The UK courts have ruled based on UK law - withdrawal from human rights conventions won't change that law.
Parliament however can change that law. The question is whether they will.
The "somewhere else" option requires there being somewhere else that isn't already receiving lots of asylum seekers ... and it's going to be difficult to find such a nation where the lack of asylum seekers isn't because that's not a safe place.
The UK courts have ruled based on UK law - withdrawal from human rights conventions won't change that law.
Parliament however can change that law. The question is whether they will.
Between now and the general election ... even if the government wanted to change the law there isn't time to do so.
The "somewhere else" option requires there being somewhere else that isn't already receiving lots of asylum seekers ... and it's going to be difficult to find such a nation where the lack of asylum seekers isn't because that's not a safe place.
Sort of stands to reason doesn't it?
Though there's a distinct lack of reasoning, or even common sense, in the current UK government.
If I understand it correctly the ruling is based on various international conventions so the standard pushback by some Tory MPs (among others) about the European Court of Human Rights is irrelevant.
"Leaving a meeting of right-wingers convened to discuss the ruling, Lee Anderson, the MP for Ashfield, said that the government should "put planes in the air" to Rwanda anyway – ignoring the Supreme Court.
Anderson is not just a provocative backbencher – he is also a deputy chairman of the Conservative Party" (BBC)
"Leaving a meeting of right-wingers convened to discuss the ruling, Lee Anderson, the MP for Ashfield, said that the government should "put planes in the air" to Rwanda anyway – ignoring the Supreme Court.
Anderson is not just a provocative backbencher – he is also a deputy chairman of the Conservative Party" (BBC)
What a fucking wanker.
30p Lee seems to have forgotten that, up until now, no airline has been willing to fly the prison planes to Rwanda. There was one, but IIRC they got cold feet, and pulled out of the plot.
Perhaps 30p was thinking of hijacking deploying Sushi's private planes and helicopters?
As for *revisiting our options*, that is clearly toryspeak for *we'll do what we fucking well like*.
Wishi Washi is talking about "revisiting our options"; presumably that means he'll try and get us out of the jurisdiction of the ECHR?
The way the judgment is framed I don’t think that’ll help him at all. The underlying principle in the judgment is non-refoulement - not returning refugees to the place they are fleeing from
One limitation of the right to expel aliens is the principle of non-refoulement, which is enshrined in several international treaties which the United Kingdom has ratified.
The court have carefully tied that into no fewer than four international treaties, only one of which is the ECHR:
The Refugee Convention aka the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention or the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951
The United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984
The United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 as well as
The European Convention on Human Rights
They go on to argue that non-refoulement may be part of customary international law, i.e. not dependent on being signed up to any treaty
It may be that the principle of non-refoulement also forms part of customary international law. The United Kingdom has subscribed to this view, along with the other states parties to the Refugee Convention, in the 2001 Declaration of States Parties to the 1951 Convention and/or its 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (UN Doc HCR/MMSP/2001/09)
IMO they have made it as difficult as possible for any government to deport refugees to any country where there’s not a pretty cast-iron guarantee that their cases will be fairly assessed, and that they won’t be forced back to the place they’ve fled from.
Sushi is reported as trying to negotiate a new treaty with Rwanda - which may take up to a year to get sorted.
General Election NOW! and let the first plane to Rwanda take the loathsome tory gobshites for a nice extended holiday...
If the Rwandan government have any sense they'll promise the world, get the money up front, then not deliver, safe in the knowledge that whatever other awful crap they may do, Starmer and Cooper should at least balk at this.
There isn't much point in repeating this demand over and over again, since the government isn't obliged to call an election at any other time other than that mandated by law. Which, under Westminister, is either when their five-year period is up, or they lose a non-confidence vote.
Several things puzzle about this on-going drivelfest:-
Who is this 'British People' that extremist politicians claim to speak for, whose one key demand isn't the cost of living, the inadequate funding of the NHS and so many more public services, the poor quality of UK government these days, the revelations of lack of integrity in high office or so many other things, but the rant 'stop the boats'?
Indeed, who really is there even among the government's right wing supporters for whom this is not a pretty long way down their list of priorities.
Why doesn't a sensible government accept that although today's decision might have caused them a bit of an embarrassing loss of face, they deserve it and they haven't much face left to lose these days? Why not regard this as a convenient opportunity quietly to let this aspiration drop?
Why not let aspiring asylum claimants work while their claims are being decided?
And, from the other side of the fence, these days, why does anyone in their right mind want to come here in the first place? Post-referendum Britain has become a horrible place, malevolent and unfriendly?
Several things puzzle about this on-going drivelfest:-
Who is this 'British People' that extremist politicians claim to speak for, whose one key demand isn't the cost of living, the inadequate funding of the NHS and so many more public services, the poor quality of UK government these days, the revelations of lack of integrity in high office or so many other things, but the rant 'stop the boats'?
Indeed, who really is there even among the government's right wing supporters for whom this is not a pretty long way down their list of priorities.
Why doesn't a sensible government accept that although today's decision might have caused them a bit of an embarrassing loss of face, they deserve it and they haven't much face left to lose these days? Why not regard this as a convenient opportunity quietly to let this aspiration drop?
Why not let aspiring asylum claimants work while their claims are being decided?
And, from the other side of the fence, these days, why does anyone in their right mind want to come here in the first place? Post-referendum Britain has become a horrible place, malevolent and unfriendly?
1. 30p Lee and his boring mates in the pub.
2. Unknown, but probably not very many.
3. This is not a sensible government, but an evil cabal of suppurating boils.
4. That is a good and sensible idea, and therefore unacceptable to the aforesaid boils.
5. Indeed, and the aim of the suppurating boils is to make the country even more malevolent and unfriendly, but many who wish to come here have family connections, or are just unaware of how horrible the ruling boils are.
We’d be in a far better place if the £140 million invested wasted in the daft Rwanda vanity project had been spent on better resourcing asylum processing, and in better resourcing stopping criminal people smugglers then we’d be in a far better place.
Clearly I'm missing something... Or rather, I'm not!
The BBC reports that the PM is considering introducing "emergency legislation" that would enable Parliament to "confirm Rwanda is safe"
Isn't this just Humpty Dumpty wishful thinking? As in "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." "
The court decision has tied in four international treaties and concluded Rwanda is unsafe because, you know, people being sent back to what they're fleeing from. The Government may choose to redefine "safe" to suit itself, but how does that help them? How does that tie in with International Law??
I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised by this, but really...
Is this the most important thing that the country needs to deal with at the moment? (Answer: NO!)
It rather reminds me of the country (Canada?) that redefined pi = 3 . It may have made the maths easier, but it made wheels difficult to manufacture.
I think the Tories are continuing with this insane and irrelevant policy purely because they know it will never happen but at least their base (and I use the term advisedly) vote 'thinks' it's a good thing; and focussing on any of the other problems like the NHS, the economy or the environment gives the opposition the easy shot of pointing out that they have been in charge for 13 years and that they are to blame for the problems.
It rather reminds me of the country (Canada?) that redefined pi = 3 . It may have made the maths easier, but it made wheels difficult to manufacture.
I think the Tories are continuing with this insane and irrelevant policy purely because they know it will never happen but at least their base (and I use the term advisedly) vote 'thinks' it's a good thing; and focussing on any of the other problems like the NHS, the economy or the environment gives the opposition the easy shot of pointing out that they have been in charge for 13 years and that they are to blame for the problems.
Sunak is pushing this hard because he only had the PMs job because he had Braverman in his cabinet, and he needs to satisfy the SEL in his party that he is continuing with that policy.
He does not - and never has - cared about what is good for the country or the people. He is only concerned with holding onto power.
He does not - and never has - cared about what is good for the country or the people. He is only concerned with holding onto power.
How do you know this ?
*Lector, si monumentum requiris, circumspice*. Translated from the original Latin, this means, *Reader if you wish to see his memorial, look around you.*
It's Sir Christopher Wren's epitaph, but it'll do for Sushi Rinak, if you read it ironically.
Perhaps you'd like to give us a comprehensive list of the Good Things Sushi has done for the country, and some evidence that he actually cares about anybody and anything, apart from himself?
He does not - and never has - cared about what is good for the country or the people. He is only concerned with holding onto power.
How do you know this ?
*Lector, si monumentum requiris, circumspice*. Translated from the original Latin, this means, *Reader if you wish to see his memorial, look around you.*
It's Sir Christopher Wren's epitaph, but it'll do for Sushi Rinak, if you read it ironically.
Perhaps you'd like to give us a comprehensive list of the Good Things Sushi has done for the country, and some evidence that he actually cares about anybody and anything, apart from himself?
Our Lecturer in Constitutional Law said: 'Parliament can do anything except make a nan a woman. Wrong: Parliament can enact a law to the effect that, in law, Joe Bloggs shall be deemed to be a woman.' Neither the judges, nor, for that matter, I think, King Charles, will like it, but there it is.
Sunak knows he will have difficulty getting this passed, and that it will be contested. I suspect he plans to use it as an issue in the forthcoming election, to try to hold in to his Red Wallers. Don't expect to see any flights to Rwanda in the near future.
Robert Graves summed it up nicely in Wife to Mr Milton.
'Parliament may vote a turd to be a rose, but a turd it remains.'
Yes, but the Tories hope to distract people from the bad state of NHS, poverty, well, everything really. Immigration and transgender are the trailblazers for the right wing.
True, but, hopefully, too many people are adversely affected by everything inflicted on them by the suppurating ulcers which make up the tory party to take much notice of their insane posturings...
True, but, hopefully, too many people are adversely affected by everything inflicted on them by the suppurating ulcers which make up the tory party to take much notice of their insane posturings...
Yes, I suspect many people are not that bothered by Rwanda or trans people, although I haven't seen any polls. Culture wars it is. I saw on Twitter the claim that we need Brexit II!
Good gods - as if fecking Brexit I hasn't done enough harm! Some people are just completely bonkers...but there's a nice hotel in Africa, so I hear, paid for by UK taxpayers, which might be a suitable place for them to retire to.
True, but, hopefully, too many people are adversely affected by everything inflicted on them by the suppurating ulcers which make up the tory party to take much notice of their insane posturings...
Yes, I suspect many people are not that bothered by Rwanda or trans people, although I haven't seen any polls. Culture wars it is. I saw on Twitter the claim that we need Brexit II!
What the ever-living feck would that be? Leaving an organisation we're no longer part of?
True, but, hopefully, too many people are adversely affected by everything inflicted on them by the suppurating ulcers which make up the tory party to take much notice of their insane posturings...
Yes, I suspect many people are not that bothered by Rwanda or trans people, although I haven't seen any polls. Culture wars it is. I saw on Twitter the claim that we need Brexit II!
What the ever-living feck would that be? Leaving an organisation we're no longer part of?
I mean, I've long been aware that under pressure conservatives and centrists will side with fascism. I just kind of thought the pressure needed to be a bit greater than this.
I mean, I've long been aware that under pressure conservatives and centrists will side with fascism. I just kind of thought the pressure needed to be a bit greater than this.
Yes, it's a shock. I have a funny feeling you ain't seen nothing yet.
The sheer insanity being demonstrated by the current infestation of Bed-Bugs is surely the sign that their days are numbered, and that they are incapable of doing anything positive to better the country they have so badly bitten.
True, but, hopefully, too many people are adversely affected by everything inflicted on them by the suppurating ulcers which make up the tory party to take much notice of their insane posturings...
Yes, I suspect many people are not that bothered by Rwanda or trans people, although I haven't seen any polls. Culture wars it is. I saw on Twitter the claim that we need Brexit II!
What the ever-living feck would that be? Leaving an organisation we're no longer part of?
I assume they're demanding we leave the ECHR.
Or possibly leave the continent of Europe. You know - strap some good old British Rolls Royce engines to the landmass, and sail it out in to the mid-Atlantic somewhere.
True, but, hopefully, too many people are adversely affected by everything inflicted on them by the suppurating ulcers which make up the tory party to take much notice of their insane posturings...
Yes, I suspect many people are not that bothered by Rwanda or trans people, although I haven't seen any polls. Culture wars it is. I saw on Twitter the claim that we need Brexit II!
What the ever-living feck would that be? Leaving an organisation we're no longer part of?
I assume they're demanding we leave the ECHR.
What would be the point of that. It was not the ECHR who blocked the government yesterday.
Comments
And having spent £140m on Rwanda, any chance of a refund? Thought not.
The "somewhere else" option requires there being somewhere else that isn't already receiving lots of asylum seekers ... and it's going to be difficult to find such a nation where the lack of asylum seekers isn't because that's not a safe place.
Parliament however can change that law. The question is whether they will.
Sort of stands to reason doesn't it?
Though there's a distinct lack of reasoning, or even common sense, in the current UK government.
General Election NOW!
Anderson is not just a provocative backbencher – he is also a deputy chairman of the Conservative Party" (BBC)
What a fucking wanker.
I expect the ERG have got him by the bollocks* for appointing Cameron, who they probably regard as practically a communist.
* assuming he has any ...
I'm sure he has. Whether they've dropped yet is another matter.
30p Lee seems to have forgotten that, up until now, no airline has been willing to fly the prison planes to Rwanda. There was one, but IIRC they got cold feet, and pulled out of the plot.
Perhaps 30p was thinking of hijacking deploying Sushi's private planes and helicopters?
As for *revisiting our options*, that is clearly toryspeak for *we'll do what we fucking well like*.
The way the judgment is framed I don’t think that’ll help him at all. The underlying principle in the judgment is non-refoulement - not returning refugees to the place they are fleeing from The court have carefully tied that into no fewer than four international treaties, only one of which is the ECHR:
They go on to argue that non-refoulement may be part of customary international law, i.e. not dependent on being signed up to any treaty
IMO they have made it as difficult as possible for any government to deport refugees to any country where there’s not a pretty cast-iron guarantee that their cases will be fairly assessed, and that they won’t be forced back to the place they’ve fled from.
General Election NOW! and let the first plane to Rwanda take the loathsome tory gobshites for a nice extended holiday...
If the Rwandan government have any sense they'll promise the world, get the money up front, then not deliver, safe in the knowledge that whatever other awful crap they may do, Starmer and Cooper should at least balk at this.
There isn't much point in repeating this demand over and over again, since the government isn't obliged to call an election at any other time other than that mandated by law. Which, under Westminister, is either when their five-year period is up, or they lose a non-confidence vote.
1. 30p Lee and his boring mates in the pub.
2. Unknown, but probably not very many.
3. This is not a sensible government, but an evil cabal of suppurating boils.
4. That is a good and sensible idea, and therefore unacceptable to the aforesaid boils.
5. Indeed, and the aim of the suppurating boils is to make the country even more malevolent and unfriendly, but many who wish to come here have family connections, or are just unaware of how horrible the ruling boils are.
The BBC reports that the PM is considering introducing "emergency legislation" that would enable Parliament to "confirm Rwanda is safe"
Isn't this just Humpty Dumpty wishful thinking? As in "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." "
The court decision has tied in four international treaties and concluded Rwanda is unsafe because, you know, people being sent back to what they're fleeing from. The Government may choose to redefine "safe" to suit itself, but how does that help them? How does that tie in with International Law??
I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised by this, but really...
Is this the most important thing that the country needs to deal with at the moment? (Answer: NO!)
I think the Tories are continuing with this insane and irrelevant policy purely because they know it will never happen but at least their base (and I use the term advisedly) vote 'thinks' it's a good thing; and focussing on any of the other problems like the NHS, the economy or the environment gives the opposition the easy shot of pointing out that they have been in charge for 13 years and that they are to blame for the problems.
Apparently, it was the state legislature of Indiana which tried to redefine pi, in 1897.
As 4. Because they were a bunch of squares.
Sunak is pushing this hard because he only had the PMs job because he had Braverman in his cabinet, and he needs to satisfy the SEL in his party that he is continuing with that policy.
He does not - and never has - cared about what is good for the country or the people. He is only concerned with holding onto power.
*Lector, si monumentum requiris, circumspice*. Translated from the original Latin, this means, *Reader if you wish to see his memorial, look around you.*
It's Sir Christopher Wren's epitaph, but it'll do for Sushi Rinak, if you read it ironically.
Perhaps you'd like to give us a comprehensive list of the Good Things Sushi has done for the country, and some evidence that he actually cares about anybody and anything, apart from himself?
I guess that's one way of avoiding my question.
I thought you might be able to give us some examples of Sushi's altruism, anyway.
That legislature was a real circle-jerk.
Sunak knows he will have difficulty getting this passed, and that it will be contested. I suspect he plans to use it as an issue in the forthcoming election, to try to hold in to his Red Wallers. Don't expect to see any flights to Rwanda in the near future.
'Parliament may vote a turd to be a rose, but a turd it remains.'
Yes, but the Tories hope to distract people from the bad state of NHS, poverty, well, everything really. Immigration and transgender are the trailblazers for the right wing.
Yes, I suspect many people are not that bothered by Rwanda or trans people, although I haven't seen any polls. Culture wars it is. I saw on Twitter the claim that we need Brexit II!
What the ever-living feck would that be? Leaving an organisation we're no longer part of?
Total lunacy on the part of some Spawn of Azathoth, no doubt. I expect they would like to build a Big Beautiful Wall in the middle of The Sleeve...
I assume they're demanding we leave the ECHR.
Yes, it's a shock. I have a funny feeling you ain't seen nothing yet.
Meanwhile, the People hit back:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/nov/16/climate-protesters-cleared-of-causing-criminal-damage-to-hsbc-london-hq
Or possibly leave the continent of Europe. You know - strap some good old British Rolls Royce engines to the landmass, and sail it out in to the mid-Atlantic somewhere.
What would be the point of that. It was not the ECHR who blocked the government yesterday.