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?

Do you? The government is constrained by the constitution. Even though it is unwritten, it exists and the SC is in charge of applying it. The government cannot just make any law that passes through their head on a given day. They cannot make arbitrary laws, or mislead the sovereign (as BJ did when he sought to prorogue parliament).

I am hoping the government also cannot redefine facts. A country that isn’t safe shouldn’t be legislated into a safe country. That’s absurd.

I see the less deluded Tories are now starting to speak out a bit:

Her proposals were quickly met with criticism, even from her own party, as the Conservatives continue to be divided by her hardline approach.
MP Ashford for Damian Green wrote on X on Thursday evening: “The second test is the most unconservative statement I have ever heard from a Conservative politician. Giving the state the explicit power to override every legal constraint is what Putin and Xi do. We absolutely cannot go there.

^^From The Independent, reporting on response to a wacky article by Braverman in The Telegraph.

Your response makes no sense, much like the government's current stance.

If you can't understand the concerns of your fellow citizens (you don't have to share them) then you probably don't have much to offer this debate tbh.

It’s not impossible at all. Hence Aus numbers. They work within the law to achieve it. Not easy but doable

What isn’t possible is limiting by faster processing and keeping same set up. Which is what a fair few people still believe can happen.

That part is not doable so people need to be realistic and decide what kind of numbers they want

I am hoping the government also cannot redefine facts.

Like humans changing sex, for example.

Oh, I can understand why people are gullible enough to believe this shit. It doesn't mean it's the issue they think it is though...

"Understanding concerns" is not a synonym for "agree with fascists"

Also I can "understand" why people believe in a deity. Doesn't mean I do.

Is that not what I said?

But this is a democracy. People will vote based on their concerns no matter how foolish and misguided you think they are. Maybe you should spend some time explaining why housing asylum seekers and refugees doesn't take away from housing their communities, or why providing for them doesn't come at the expense of providing for ourselves. Or why we /they don't have to worry about uncontrolled migration.

Thank you for posting this, I had lost hope of any Conservative MP understanding the limits on the Government's powers.

Also thanks to those posters who have addressed the OP's original issue and avoided diversions into the rights and wrongs of stopping the boats. I am deeply concerned that unconstitutional and undesirable Government behaviours are being slipped through under the smokescreen of a highly emotive issue.

But this is a democracy.

Of sorts. Most MPs were actively rejected by their constituents. So your foundations are ropey to start with. If we had other ways to accommodate that fact (maybe an elected upper house) we would see more representative views and possibly more equitable decision and policy making.

UK democracy such as it is harks back to an age when the masses were excluded and the choice between Whig and Tory was more akin to your favourite Spice Girl. As does US democracy, by the way. Neither is fit for purpose in a pluralistic society with universal suffering.

Now personally, I would look to amend the system rather than the population. However we have been saddled with a whole bunch of folks whose bright idea is to amend the population to fit the system. Something I have seen - and fought against - in many years in IT.

If you ask AI how to go about restoring the UK to the status quo of 1900, you'd get the next Tory manifesto.

If we had other ways to accommodate that fact (maybe an elected upper house) we would see more representative views

As in the US? I see this pushed a lot. On this issue you’d more likely get it through without the HoL and a similar majority to HoC

But do you think the Rwanda plan would make any difference? Given the small numbers of people they would fly out there, and the refugees we'd receive in return? It's such an immense cost for something that doesn't appear to make any kind of practical difference.

The Rwanda plan is all about the principle. The details are irrelevant.

As ever, GBS applies.

Would you pay a trafficker to not end up in the U.K.?

Just from a behaviour level you can see you need some people to do this and take the outcome.

How many would pay to have that outcome?

No idea what GBS means in pp but it’s not principle it’s behaviour. So think about if you’d pay

I don’t actually mind if people want higher numbers as long as they realise making it easier, faster and less onerous will get exactly that. Much higher numbers.

It’s the wanting smooth and limited that just doesn’t work in reality

So it's an expensive deterrent @EasternStandard ? It really does seem all about the optics, and the fixation on it from Suella Braverman and her supporters feels wildly disproportionate. It just seems like tinkering around the edges in the hopes it will put a few people off. But it all comes down to how desperate they are, as to whether they would take the gamble.

A deterrent that works isn’t just optics though, see Aus who has used v strong measures for a while

For it to work there needs to be applied as people enter, they know it will happen and no loop holes

You won’t get many takers, why would anyone pay for that outcome?

Think about the first however many, 1000 people or whatever it is. They need to accept they won’t be in the U.K., would you do it?

No idea what GBS means in pp but it’s not principle it’s behaviour.

Shaw: Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?
Actress: My goodness, Well, I'd certainly think about it
Shaw: Would you sleep with me for a pound?
Actress: Certainly not! What kind of woman do you think I am?!
Shaw: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling over the price.

Source: https://quotepark.com/quotes/1875762-george-bernard-shaw-shaw-madam-would-you-sleep-with-me-for-a-million/

with the usual caveat about Churchillian drift and it's obvious misogyny of it's time, it does make a very valid point. I am sure there is a hipster equivalent featuring unicorns and rainbows but I really can't be arsed to update it.

It’s not about making a difference. It’s about signaling to the GB new crowd that they hate immigrants even more than Reform UK. On every metric, the ‘plan’ makes no sense either logistically or economically.

Its the ultimate in gesture politics.

Do you say the same about Aus policies?

Why are you obsessed with how another continent has addressed an issue that has completely different dimensions to the UK ?

It's a bit like the pig headed insistence that the UK had to have US style energy providers, which completely ignored the fact that the US is a continent and the UK would be lost in most of the 50 states.

Maybe - just maybe - we should come up with something that works for us ? Radical idea I know.

Mind you, if you want to ship in foreign policies, then pre war Germany seemed to do OK didn't it ? Well for some.

I’m more surprised at how oblivious people are about the same issues faced by other countries and how they are dealing with it or not. But yes they have become bi partisan on the approach as it works.

Maybe - just maybe - we should come up with something that works for us ?

What is that?

I don't know. We haven't come up with it yet. Despite having 650 of the brightest and best the country has to offer in parliament.

How about you? Any ideas?

Not at my pay grade.

Sadly that’s the alternative atm. A blank

So even if many posters are going hard against an Aus style process there won’t be another suggested

Just remember as a starting point the easier you make it the more a country will have arrive and go from there