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?

All those who keep posting how easy it is to deal with this - give Scholz a call too

I hear the AfD are giving him problems

I’m certain you and the other no problem exists posters will have an answer..

I don’t understand the fixation on Rwanda, given the tiny number they're talking about sending, the cost of it and the fact we'd swap for Rwandan refugees? The rhetoric around 'putting planes in the air' makes it sound like huge numbers being dispatched but that is not the case. It feels like a giant dead cat that totally ignores the issue.

Quite, it is such a stupid scheme, I can't believe people have fallen for it.

It will change nothing and cost a lot.

What’s your solution?

@cardibach No I said Rwanda was not a good idea. I do not think it is feasible and is too costly.

How is Rwanda a solution though, that's what doesn't seem to make sense?

The government can ride rough-shod over the laws, because the government make the laws.

Do you not understand how legislation works?

This feels like quite a dangerous argument. The government need to follow the law (though this Tory government definitely don't seem to think they should). Democracy has safeguards built in to stop governments doing whatever they want. Otherwise we're in a dictatorship.

Otherwise we're in a dictatorship

What evidence is there we aren't ?

Well those things called elections we have every few years. The ones where we get to vote.

Why a dictatorship?

MPs vote and it goes through the process

People vote in GEs

Of course i understand how the law works @penjil . Please don't be so patronising

Exactly the public elect the government. The government then make the laws. Or are people seriously suggesting the public should vote on each law?!

But the government can't circumnavigate the law by making new ones. The supreme court exists to keep them in check. There seem to be posters on here genuinely arguing for a government to be able to do anything they like because 'they make the laws'. What if they decide they'd like to make a law preventing any more elections taking place? There are, and should be, limits to their power and no one should be so blase about ignoring that because in this case they like the proposed legislation.

I think thats possibly true - if you define capacity as ‘how many asylum seekers people think we should accept’. I think the actual capacity is much higher.

This is where the US constitution makes a point. It is a US citizens protection from the power of the state. Based on the Magna Carta which successive parliaments have diluted.

What protections do UK citizens have from the power of the state ? Protections that aren't fine words.

How many do you think is the capacity?

Like I’ve said - I don’t know. Do you?
What’s your solution for the growing number of genuine asylum seekers in the world?

It’s a really tough one. I think people are underestimating what is happening already and will continue to increase

All the fast processing type answers won’t work

We’ll either see clamping down but eventually that may be destabilising

Or countries will hugely struggle with influx which will also be destabilising

I don’t mind if there’s discussion to build consensus but the ‘easily fixed’ and ‘just process faster’ answers just aren’t feasible at all

I don’t disagree. But processing efficiently is essential to any solution. People languishing in limbo helps nobody.
There is an increasing population of migrants with valid asylum claims. It needs a global solution. But pretending we are ‘full’ isn’t helpful.

To add to last post in relation to fast processing it is possible if a cap is applied. But that’s not currently possible under international law. Well unless another location is used and then safe routes are added separately with a limit

If any country speeds up processing and makes it easier they won’t be able to deal with the numbers

So what’s your solution? A cap is impractical for many reasons.

Why is a cap impractical?

A cap is impossible not just impractical. We have large numbers arriving on "the boats" despite the fact that the government has closed all legal routes for arriving for most people. So putting an arbitrary "cap" is nonsensical.

There is so much nonsensical about all these arguments. The idiocy and cruelty of those proposing them is beyond my understanding...

Can you give an example of the government legislating to alter facts?

The SC has ruled, having pored over hundreds of pages of evidence, that Rwanda is not a safe country. That is a finding of fact. Rishi is introducing a bill to have it declared that Rwanda is a safe country.

It is not the job of parliament to seek to alter reality. It is in fact the very premise of 1984, and should be a worry to us all. Ministry of Truth, anyone?