Thread 32 Sunak : Sunak v Suella, the final countdown?

[DuncinToffee]

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4916659-thread-31-sunak-court-conflicts-and-complications?page=1

Quite. Many people don't seem to understand that a reduction in inflation merely means that prices are not rising quite as much as they were, not that things are getting cheaper.

But of course instead of focusing on action that could actually improve the lives of so many people who are in a desperate situation, the 20% of our people who are living in poverty, the millions who are actually destitute, this government's focus is on taking credit for something they haven't been responsible for and which won't make a difference, just so they can get re-elected and fuck everyone over even more. When will people wake up to what is happening?

Lots of messaging now about using this "lower" rate to uplift benefits rather than the September figure. Tells you what the Tories really do think of those in benefits particularly when pensions will probably get a much higher uplift.

The Rwanda ruling from the Supreme court is due now.

I'm watching BBC 24.

In proclaiming his goal of getting inflation down Sunak is going to face exactly the same challenge as remain campaigners did in arguing that the evidence showed that migrants are net contributors.

Namely. People's lived experience.

Whilst inflation might be down that still means that prices are rising, often faster than earnings, so it won't feel any better to people.

Via Adam Wagner

Some very public-facing comments by Lord Reed in the opening of his summary of the judgment:

- Policy is not that the UK will process asylum claims whilst people are in Rwanda, Rwanda will process them (despite the former often being claimed)
- The non-refoulement principle is contained in a number of treaties not just the European Convention on Human Rights and Human Rights Act

It's the validity of the MOU and the undertaking compared to actual evidence

This sounds very unpromising for the Government. I think this looks like a partial loss

Non-refoulement and refoulement appear to be key terms that are completely new to me.

Listening to this... it is very interesting I have to say. No idea how it will go

Okay I think it over. Loss

Over 100 cases of refoulement by Rwanda including post MOU.

The Israel idea hasn't aged well, has it?

There is a lot of criticism of Rwanda though?

Government loses. Unanimous judgement.

Not loss.

A win. Not happening

Especially by the UNHCR

But no costs awarded for the claimant who asked.

Good!

Its devastating. No wonder Braverman was anxious to go.

Oh look, there's mad Steve

Well good old Reid with his insistence on assessments of evidence and not relying on a political undertaking.

Thank goodness, and I found the actual judgement part really interesting too,

It was a very good summation.

So that's a massive waste of money then. So far £140million. And very little publicity about the Rwandans we were going to take here in return.

Something of a judicial carpet bombing. Only five judges allocated and unanimous.

I bet Braverman was told her chances of success were nearly nil

Supreme Court president says "not only ECHR which is relevant" and same principle laid out in UK laws and international treaties