Changing the law because the current one does not fit your narrative

[jemenfous37]

How is this allowed to happen? There are quite a few laws that many of us would like to break, either for our own convenience or because they don't suit our world-view, but we cannot.
So why can the Government, after 4 rejected court appeals, dare to ride rough-shod over our laws?

It would help if you told us exactly what you’re referring to?

At a wild guess, it's the Rwanda ruling.

I know?? I really don’t understand the mechanics of it??

It’s about yesterday’s High Court decision refugees and shipping them off to Rwanda. @TrishIsMySpiritAnimal

Without getting into the politics of this particular ruling, that's what Parliament does week in week out - review, debate, amend and create law.

The Rwanda debacle, I imagine? Yes. Don’t get the result you want? Change the law!

But that's exactly what governments do. They think up and create new laws or amend existing ones to fit their agenda. The Rwanda situation isn't unique.

YANBU. Absolute jokers.

It is nothing like standard government behaviour.

They don't usually redefine reality.

I agree with you.

I heard a soundbite of Rishi talking yesterday that made me think the ruling had been in the government's favour, and they just had a few details to iron out before it went ahead.

Just shows how skewed they are. I thought he was one of the good ones, too. Not any more.

Because it's very hard to frame laws in ways that don't have unintended consequences, the full implications of which may not be apparent until they're tested in the courts. That's especially difficult in areas such as human rights - just look to the American courts for people claiming to be persecuted for all manner of mundane things.

And smart lawyers will always try to find novel ways to interpret and apply laws to serve their clients' interests, many of which were never intended or considered when the laws were drafted.

A healthy tension between politicians and the courts is good for democracy.

It's a bit like Henry 8th. Can't get a divorce. Change the whole country's religion and/or chop off their heads. Very worrying behaviour.

Creating, amending, removing laws is literally parliament’s job though? It’s not riding roughshod over the law if what they’re proposing is to change the law.

I’m totally against the Rwanda policy, but not for this reason.

You can't just create a law that says "Rwanda is safe" though if that isn't the objective reality. I can draw a few extra zeroes on my bank balance but that doesn't make me a millionaire.

Saying 'Rwanda is safe' is not a law, it is a judgement.

Not wanting to go too off message. But it's totally irksome when they suggest they can fast track new laws for something like this. When things that feel more seemingly urgent, like environment pollution seems to go on unabashed.

I initially thought they never had any intention of ever enacting such a scheme. Due to totally foreseeable challenges. Suggesting they are tackling the 'problem' without actually doing anything. 13 years, and barely any progress on a topic they were dog whistling about before they gained power.

When we were members of the EU, it seemed only fair to come up with an EU solution.

Alas, my Mum expects that when Rishi stops the boats, all the eastern Europeans will exit Bognor Regis. I hear stuff like why can't France have them etc etc. Would be great to have a sensible debate about immigration/migration/asylum.

Precisely !.

Yeah but government is supposed to make laws for the benefit of the citizens, not to fuel its own racist agenda and cynically distract us from the real issues this country faces.

It'll be interesting to see what format this legislation will take.

There's a whole heap of scepticism within the Tory party as to whether it is possible to legislate in the way Sunak was proposing yesterday.

If he has to use the Parliament Act to force it through the Lord's it'll take a year. He hasnt got a year.

Maybe the next judgement will be that we’ve achieved net zero targets. I put nothing past this charlatan of a PM.

We could pass a law redefining zero as an ever increasing number?

This is what you get when you forget what fascism looks like

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8205321-the-party-told-you-to-reject-the-evidence-of-your

and in the US "abortion" is being redefined if the GOP gets it's way.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/02/opinion/abortion-bans-republicans.html

E2A: Also remember the government rushing to change the law to deny compensation to Workfare victims ? If you put up with that then you really greased the slope for this one.

That’s not what the government are doing, and to assert that it is shows a complete misunderstanding of what is happening. The government is complying with the law as it currently exists and the rulings of the courts which interprets & apply that law. That’s why aircraft full of illegal immigrants are not taking off for Rwanda today.

If the democratically elected government of the U.K. disagrees with the court’s rulings, and believes current laws are unfit for purpose, then it is completely reasonable for them to try to change those laws by bringing in new legislation and getting it voted through Parliament. That is what governments do. That is how British Parliamentary democracy works.

Agree

Whatever your view of the Rwanda plan, the government are just flogging a dead horse. How much time and expense is being expended on this bullshit?