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

Apparently he is talking about the ECHR, but who knows.

Maybe he should read the judgement again

It's the treaty option which I talked about earlier. This will go quite fast now

Lord Cameron swiftly feeling buyers remorse, it was so peaceful in Oxfordshire

The SC is foreign?

That nice Mr Sunak is finally showing his true colours as a massive, venal arsehole.

Robert Peston

I think Rishi Sunak has just said that if parliament votes that "Rwanda is a safe country" via his planned emergency legislation - and that can't be taken for granted - he will just ignore the European Court of Human Rights if it intervenes to stop asylum seekers being expelled there. This sounds like he is saying he would be prepared to simply ignore international treaty obligations. Which would be quite an important - and many would say dangerous - precedent

This is a disgusting, but standard, play of words by the Tories.

The dullards of the country who support the idea will only hear the words "I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights to Rwanda", and believe that it's those pesky foreigners stopping us once again. I doubt half of them have even heard of the Supreme Court, let alone knows where it sits.

Isn’t he just, caught the last bit of his nonsense on the radio just now I have no words, how on earth have we sunk to such depths truly awful.

Ah the treaty is nearly complete. Now they have the judgment, they can fill in the gaps.

Btw there is zero chance Braverman though of this process but I think it's a very careful reading of what finally got Abu Qatada out of the country.

The government will use the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 powers to ratify the treaty and take other powers to ensure removal.

Clever, and well thought out.

Yes that's it. He is going for broke

The (British) Supreme Court was clear it doesn't judge Rwanda 'safe' for asylum seekers. It points to:

• Threats of extra-judicial killings
• Deaths in custody
• Forced disappearances
• 100+ cases of refoulement

"Significant changes need to be made to Rwanda's procedures."

x.com/tomlarkinsky/status/1724835715022725178?s=46&t=Uw4lJNwxFZFnX0Xs3doHYg

But the legislation (secondary!!!) can overrule that. Parliament is supreme.

You might challenge that legislation and it's basis, but that is not certain to be successful.

It's about stopping the court looking at the evidence. And Sunak was a bit slippery because it's the European Court on Human Rights that will put injunctions in to stop flights, not the SC

And in any event, a new treaty with guarantees to address the concerns of the SC means again that issue is negated.

Clever.

Wouldn't that undermine the GFA?

Wonder how much a new treaty will cost. Rwanda would be daft to sign up without additional funding.

Ffs, this is just appalling. Are there a sanctions that can be applied personally to those ignoring a Supreme Court ruling?

Is it going to end up that people who are employed to facilitate this are personally accountable for breaking international laws?

He's taking the fucking piss!

How dare he. He is scum, no fucking morals. I'm writing to my MP this evening to demand she send a letter- she won't because her heads up his arse and she also has no morals, but I can make my feelings clear.

This is not acceptable behaviour from a decent government and Britain deserves so much better. They really are in the sewers.

I’m not surprised. The arrogance and total disregard for anything that stands in their way is par for the course. They disgust me more every day.

What happens about the ECHR is unclear! It would still be up to the European Court to rule about an injunction.

The end point is worth thinking about - what this looks like is similar to what happened with the withdrawal from the EU and a minor breach of international law. That never happened but the Government maintained its course until it had negotiated its outcome. This is the same to me, where you push the mechanics of the law and give yourself arguments to defend the policy anew. It keeps the policy alive for the election. And that may be enough to make a difference in those areas of the UK who do not like small boats.

I am sure Rwanda will take more money to "improve its appeal system" which is handy in any defence.

These are good questions actually where the Government may find the unions refuse to permit their members to engage. So that means the police or army in practice.

I don’t understand how this works. Isn’t assessment of the relative safety of countries an ongoing matter for the foreign office? If they change the definition of a safe country, wouldn’t that have wider implications? If it’s ‘emergency legislation’, who is writing it and checking whether it could lead to unintended consequences?

I thought the foreign office had already said Rwanda was unsafe. There was one of those weird ‘you couldn’t make it up’ Tory government moments where somebody (possibly Braverman) had to defend the policy by saying that was a different department and the home office had assessed it as safe.

https://x.com/AdamWagner1/status/1724863828775616614?s=20

The Prime Minister can't legislate away international legal obligations - the Supreme Court made that very clear, and even thew in a (lawyerly) warning that the non-refoulment principle exists in customary international law, so aside from any treaty or law.

Unless the serious systemic problems with the Rwandan asylum system can be resolved within weeks, no amount of emergency legislation is going to solve the issue identified by the Supreme Court in today's judgment.

If the government had any sense it would cut its (considerable) losses now and come up with a better policy which isn't going to lead to more litigation and no flights.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67432393

It’s ok because Labour are going to come along interupt their enemy while they are making mistakes. Quite how they manage to get this wrong as international opinion is turning towards criticising the Israeli response is beyond me.

What exactly do they hope to achieve with this? Israel is hardly going to pay any attention.

Politics is in self destruct mode. Someone needs to get a grip.