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?

Which laws around asylum do you want changed?

Following the Supreme Court’s observation of the patently obvious fact that Rwanda is an unsafe destination for asylum seekers, Rishi Sunak is pushing through legislation to “confirm that Rwanda is safe, and while we’re all playing pretend, I’m six foot six with god-like muscles”.

Rishi Sunak, five foot six, said, “I’m sick and tired of legal battles, and of buying my clothes in the back-to-school sales, and so I’m preparing legislation to solve both problems at once.

“If I change the law to say Rwanda is safe, then observable reality be damned – it IS safe. And I will yell it to the House of Commons as my herculean frame looms over the dispatch box, while for emphasis I rip a phone book in half with my mighty arms and crush a breeze-block to dust between my mighty glutes.
“And coming soon, emergency legislation to say I’m miles ahead in the polls! I alone shall decide what’s real and what’s not! I’m not panicking! I’m not panicking! If you don’t shut up I will pass an emergency law to say I’m not panicking!”

The proposed legislation to reclassify Rwanda as ‘safe’ has already met with fierce opposition from the right wing of the party, who are ideologically opposed to sending asylum seekers anywhere ‘safe’.

The Supreme Court has considered Mr Sunak’s proposition and has ruled that, seriously, of course Rwanda isn’t bloody safe, and that Mr Sunak is actually four-foot eighteen.

If your starting assumption is all it takes is law changes then there really isn't much point is there ?

It's a little like seeing the guy I called to fix my espresso machine walking up the path swinging a sledgehammer.

Actually it's a lot like it.

Ah, I remember the good old days

https://evolvepolitics.com/the-similarities-between-hitlers-1933-enabling-act-and-theresa-mays-brexit-power-grab-are-incredibly-worrying/

You agreed with this in pp but I do think the laws around asylum need to be changed

Did you have a law / laws in mind?

No, but it doesn't make it right to change it becuase you don't like it!

I agreed there was a debate to be had. And part of that would be looking at laws. However there is word "holistic" that should really be a guiding principle.

Don't come to me for a quick answer on that one (I wished I hadn't)...

I didn’t agree with Rwanda as it was too complicated and costly not because the sentiment was wrong.

Nowhere in the world will accept them unless they are a country that is desperate for the millions of £ it brings.

We could open the borders, then the our standard of living would plummet.

So to the nay sayers, what is your plan?

Whatever happens the set up we currently have will show too much strain, not just here but across EU and elsewhere.

Starting point should be post war systems won’t deal with increase in movement of people.

Whether citizens demand politicians close off or take more people we’ll see.

The status quo won’t stick, and nor will the idea of orderly and limited access using current laws

While that’s true, it’s not just British law creating a problem here. It’s international law.
Plus I’m getting very fed up with both the government and the media talking about refugees being sent to other countries ‘to have their claim assessed’. That’s not what’s happening. They can’t come back here even if they are judged to be eligible for asylum.

Any of you who voted Conservative in 2019 and fell for the lies of the man who condones sex offenders are partly responsible.

On the specifics of Rwanda, it will end up with yet another court case and appeals. Far better if you think the proposal is reasonable to use UK soil or that of a crown colony/dependency.

This is true, as far as it goes.

The problem that the government has is that, while it can negotiate a new treaty which says Rwanda agrees not to ship these immigrants back to their country of origin and thus comply with the ruling of the Supreme Court, they're making the assumption that it's the only reason their plan is unlawful (not to mention that as soon as Rwanda goes back on any part of its agreement even once, the whole thing gets scrapped).

In reality, it's the only reason amongst the arguments presented at court that their plan is unlawful. It will be relatively trivial for the opposition to continue a dripfeed of arguments and keep this bouncing around the courts until after the General Election, with Sunak and co playing whack-a-mole changing laws to skirt the rulings.

And, let's not forget, there are many in his own party who are not happy with the idea of changing laws to evade adverse court rulings. It's not a given that such a plan will succeed.

Were you more a Corbyn voter in 2019?

So your contention is, it’s either send them all to Rwanda or throw our hands up and open the borders completely?
The Rwanda contract is fro 200, and we’ve agreed to take vulnerable Rwandan refugees in return, so it doesn’t actually do anything about the numbers if asylum seekers.
My plan would be to follow national and international law, process people in a timely way (ideally in France) so that we don’t have thousands waiting around in hotels and generally behave like a civilised country.

How many applications do you envisage doing it this way?

Nothing about Llyn’s (beautiful place, by the way @LlynTegid ) post gives any indication of political leanings. Disliking the liar Johnson is not the preserve of Labour voters.
Also supporting Corbyn (or not) is somewhat irrelevant to the debate, don’t you think? He’s had no input in asylum law or policy.

Well, since the numbers being processed has dropped radically I suggest the Home Office gets its finger out and back up to speed, the. We’ll have an idea. Numbers aren’t actually increasing much - just more are coming by boat and less by other means.
What’s your solution to the looming immigration crisis which global warming will cause?

Corbyn was at the 2019 GE - I’m sure many would prefer to forget - and since they talked about who people voted for then, so did I

In any other case, if a parties application is unsuccessful, and they just took it away and changed the font and resubmitted it, the court would hit them with a massive penalty for wasting court time.

No wonder our courts are so backlogged. They're all full of government cases. No time for the real stuff.

Thank you for all your responses. We are living in the 'interesting times' the Chinese curse warned us against!

Can you give an idea of numbers under this civilised system?

Can you see an issue with general trends in terms of people movement and what you’d do about that

Well yes. He didn’t win though, did he? So people voting for him are in no way responsible for the shit show the liar Johnson unleashed. You are, in fact, pointing out how little responsibility Labour voters have.

I’ve said it’s a crisis. It’s not my job to sort that out. It’s - wait for it - the government’s!
I expect them to do so following international law and showing some sort of morality and human empathy. Or I would if they weren’t Tories and incapable of that.

Well yes. He didn’t win though, did he?

Tf for that.

Making law is what parliament does though. Literally. The government is the government because that party has a parliamentary majority. A future government can reverse those laws, they frequently do. Governments tend to legislate to support their narrative, thats democracy for you!