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

Reid read the summary but the full judgment should be on the SC website.

However, a case on the facts. It does not mean the Government could not try another country. It was the inadequacy of Rwanda's legal system for asylum seekers that undermined the undertaking and MOU given.

This type of scheme is lawful in principle, as long as the "safe third country" is safe.

Am I allowed to feel a bit smug in the 'I told you so' sense after all the immigration threads we have had on here

I think the issue is not new but occurs to a similar extent in other cases in terms of undertakings given. If anyone remembers Abu Qatada and the attempts to deport him from the UK...

What are the chances of a third country that would be deemed safe wanting to take money in exchange for refugees?
For example I would presume that most European countries are safe third countries, but since they already take more refugees than the UK does, I doubt they would be interested.

There are talks about Albania, guess if they pay a country enough, who knows.

Jess Phillips

Just a little reminder that Government have spent more money on the failed Rwanda scheme than it did on domestic abuse refuges for women and children.

That would be ridiculous given the number of people claiming asylum from Albania! I appreciate that the figure has dropped rather a lot recently from Albanian asylum seekers...

Jim Pickard

your regular reminder that the government has flown more journalists to Rwanda than asylum seekers

I don’t suppose there’s any chance we’ll be asking Rwanda for our money back? Jess Phillips is on the money.

There was a useful part about the application of customary international law and the UK position. It is not as simple as withdrawing from the ECHR whatever is said today by people who support that idea.

Of course it’s not. For one thing they have no mandate to do it. If that’s what they want they need to put it in their manifesto at the next election. Amazing how democracy has been binned since Brexit, isn’t it?

My take is that the Government may try a treaty with Rwanda to try and remedy the MOU. This was done for Abu Qatada after losses in the courts.

>snorts<

How long will that take? Is it feasible it could be done before they have to go to the polls?

Oh help, they've got Jonathon Gullis on BBC2 Politics Live talking about this. Luckily Jo Coburn is a dog with a bone, and won't let him get away with talking shit.

@BIossomtoes - writing a treaty can be very fast! A few weeks work

But still, it would need serious guarantees regarding the asylum and court system in Rwanda- presumably the Government has thought about it already

With Suella in charge? Doubtful.

I am so fucking angry that its cost the tax payer £££££ in legal fees for a judge to say something so patently obvious. Maybe the Government should refer this kind of thing to their "Common Sense Tsar".

No "safe third country" is going to be interested in this arrangement as they will be taking their own refugees.

Apparently the UK Govt has two other countries 'in mind' but hasn't revealed which ones yet. We have previously had speculation about various crown dependencies and overseas territories whose own governments told the government to get fucked. So that went well.

@Blossomtoes - it's an interesting one because I think there are more minds at work on this and it would explain some of the letter yesterday.

My take is that Braverman wanted to have her specific amendments to the Illegal Migration Act for political value. The fact they might not have been human rights compliant may not have bothered her (drawing on her actions as AG here on Northern Ireland). But to use those powers would almost have been a slam dunk unlawful matter and the legislation would have had to be corrected pursuant to the powers under the HRA.

But, concluding a treaty between governments, using royal prerogative power, rarely subject to judicial intervention on the basis this power belongs to the Crown, which sets out the required standards in a legally binding treaty, not a MOU or undertaking which do not have to be binding, and then amending the Illegal Migration Act to bring in powers to remove, well, do not be surprised if this does happen.

In case people find it difficult to understand why any government would spent immense energy and resource on a policy which was likely to be unlawful, there is and has been for a long time an influential section of the Conservative Party whose long term aim has been for the UK to leave the European Convention on Human Rights.

They have engaged on a strategy of policies and even legislation which sets a 'trap' for our courts and the European Court of Human Rights - purely for political reasons, so that they can say 'look the ECHR or Human Rights Act stops us doing X or Y", and persuade the British people that it is better for us to leave."

Worth reading this in full from Adam Wagner.

x.com/adamwagner1/status/1724747296665907620?s=46&t=Uw4lJNwxFZFnX0Xs3doHYg

Clarke-Smith reposting the daily Mail headline "enemies of the people".

Party of law & order.

Utterly shameful and unworthy of government.

Was just pondering this.