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?

The government wants to legislate that Rwanda is safe, when the courts have judged it not safe.

The issue is not the law, but the third country under consideration.

You can pretend the government is behaving normally, but it is not.

£140 million just on the Rwanda treaty so far.

This

However the underlying facts of the case are that - regardless of any "treaty" (and if the UK is quite prepared to abandon treaties, then so are the Rwandans) - SCOTUK found Rwanda to be unsafe.

We are in danger of straying in to redefining pi to be a round 3 because decimals are (as well know) a pinko plot. You are of course free to call pu whatever you want. But if you like your buildings standing, and your electricity flowing, 3.141572 is probably a better bet.

I see that many Tories and legal experts think the idea that parliament can just vote to declare Rwanda 'safe' is a nonsense.

We shall see what the legislation comes out looking like.

Then organisations can take the legislation itself through the courts.

I can't see anything happening quickly.

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

Well, yeah, obviously? Why do you think laws get changed - it's because politicians decided that the current ones are wrong, or out of date, or don't cover something that needs to be legislated.

The gun laws have repeatedly changed over the last century because they didn't fit with the "narrative" of the time. People often complain that the laws which ban begging and sleeping rough are outdated and should be revised.

It's nothing unusual for a government to want to change laws. It's part of their job.

There were 2 ways the government could scrap this ludicrous idea. They've just chosen the one the dim won't twig it's happened.

Exactly. Otherwise we’d be stuck with the same laws. Obviously not though

‘The dim’

That old chestnut worked with Brexit, not

Try again I suppose

There were 2 ways the government could scrap this ludicrous idea.

More money getting poured down the drain while the government pretend they have a plan.

What will the Lords do with the legislation? Kick it out presumably. Tick, tick, tick the parliamentary clock keeps running.

The idea is that the public has elected a government with certain agenda and leanings, so politicians are legislating in representation of the voters. It's supposed to be democracy.

I don't think anyone really considers a minority government - as ours always are in vote share - to be that democratic!

But even so, what they are trying to do by legislating to redefine a country as safe when it has not been found to be safe, extends beyond any manifesto pledge on small boats or immigration.

It's beyond stupid. And even if they succeed it's still a load of nonsense.

Rwanda have agreed to take around 200 asylum seekers a year. It won’t scratch the surface of the real problem which is a useless processing system. They just want that plane to take off as it will give racists a semi and win a few votes...

Before I say this I am going to preface what I say because I know a lot of people will hate it. No matter what this government do to try to change the law on this matter I will actively oppose the change. Full stop, and no negotiation. On a wider basis I despise this government and everything they stand for.

But there are regrettably very many citizens - and not all of them Tory voters either - who agree with the government on the "small boats", so arguing that such a move doesn't benefit citizens doesn't hold very much water. Many, many citizens would disagree with you that they get no benefit, and (living in a very racially diverse area) I can tell you that many of those citizens are the children and grandchildren of immigrants. I don't agree with them. I also see much of this debate as a way of distracting people from their real life issues. But regrettably this debate has been far from won in the general population, and it is not just the "right wing" who think like this.

I do agree with others that I think this is a dead horse - there is very little chance that this particular "strategy" will work even if they change the law, because there are other hurdles they will not easily overcome, and which not even their own backbenchers will support. Certainly, even with a change in the law tomorrow, they won't clear those hurdles and send anyone anywhere before a general election. So this is mostly about undermining Suella's remaining support before an election....

But the bigger picture is what we do to change hearts and minds about decency and compassion in relation to asylum, and fair and safe routes to asylum. After all, just a quick scurry around threads here will tell you that thse small boats are full of young foreign men who will rape the first white woman they see (or imply that if they don't outright say it). Then there's the complaints about how none of them work (they aren't allowed to - why not let them?). Etc. Etc. There is a broad failure to understand anything about this agenda. Just the very fact that we threw open our doors at a moments notice to welcome those nice (white) Ukrainian people, but I don't notice anyone screaming they would like to "adopt" a Palestinian family.....thousands and thousands of posts about Gaza with opinions of every shade, but oddly no suggestion we should help people by giving them sanctuary in the UK should they want to come.

I vote for a change in the law that makes it illegal to charge for cookies.

I agree that this is the most worrying aspect of the whole debacle.

There's a big difference between the Government initiating a balanced, reasoned debate on a law that might need reviewing, and the PM stating that they WILL change the law by special emergency procedures. The first is what Parliament is for. The second is scary.

To those saying they have a mandate to reduce immigration by any means necessary - no, they have a mandate to reduce immigration by any legal means. If those legal means are not sufficient, then follow normal democratic process to change the law. Do not invoke special emergency procedures to create loopholes. We are not at war here.

This is no longer about whether controlling immigration is right or wrong. It is about whether the current government considers it is above the law.

I don't agree with removing people to Rwanda but I do think the laws around asylum need to be changed (as does the resourcing of the whole system).

The thing is, all this shouting "STOP THE BOATS" at every opportunity is nothing whatsoever about immigration. It's a dog whistle to the racist tendency, as part of their culture wars, because that is the only way they think they can win any seats at the next election (same with the trans debate).

There are two simple ways they could actually "stop the boats". The first is having an efficient processing centre in France (which has been repeatedly offered, but turned down by the government because they want to fuel this "crisis").

The second would be to rejoin the EU, and the Dublin convention. But they don't want to do this as they would have to declare all their offshore investments to HMRC.

It's patently obvious that this crisis has been created by the government when you see how they have drastically reduced the resources of those processing asylum claims. If they were processed efficiently, then they wouldn't have to be housed long term in hotels, or fucking floating disease pits, and they could either be returned, or (as 90% of cases are approved after appeal) join society and work.

If you're falling for this nonsense you need to take a long, hard look at yourself...

These won’t work.

And you’ll find migration an increasing political pressure across the EU

Not sure that the 2019 manifesto mentioned outsourcing refugees to Rwanda?

But that is a reasonable approach. And as such has no place in this debate.

I am very wary of governments that ride in on the back of "solutions" they have dreamt up, and then try to ram them through regardless.

What's that got to do with it ?

Well nobody in the electorate could have voted for it, could they? Despite the “it’s what the people voted for” line being trotted out on a regular basis.

It was Patel and Braverman’s stupid idea.

Alternatively, you could just read the nested quotes.

My point being even if it had been a manifesto pledge ....

https://bylinetimes.com/2022/04/06/boris-johnson-conservative-broken-manifesto-promises-2019/

Par for the course with this bunch of over titled shits. If they can't get what they want one way they'll get it another way.

Bit like the German National Socialist party in the 1930s really.