Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Howardh]

What happens, r/e immigration, if a person wishing to come here is retired, let's say on £15,000 pension, but has £500k in savings? Admittedly the interest these days would take you above the statutory minimum, but when rates fall that won't be the case? That applies to anyone from the UK wishing to retire to Spain (for example) as well?

 

[M&NEJ]

What happens, r/e immigration, if a person wishing to come here is retired, let's say on £15,000 pension, but has £500k in savings? Admittedly the interest these days would take you above the statutory minimum, but when rates fall that won't be the case? That applies to anyone from the UK wishing to retire to Spain (for example) as well?

Under the Immigration Rules you can offset savings against income, if you don't have enough income to meet the earnings threshold. I want to bring my future wife here but under the proposed new threshold I'll be some thousands short. I can multiply the shortfall by 2.5, then add £16,00 and if I've got more than that total in savings I can still apply for (and hope to get) a Family visa. Hope that made sense!

 

[ainsworth74]

What happens, r/e immigration, if a person wishing to come here is retired, let's say on £15,000 pension, but has £500k in savings? Admittedly the interest these days would take you above the statutory minimum, but when rates fall that won't be the case?

You're going to struggle as I don't think there's a visa category for retirees to move the UK even if they are self-sufficient (which £500k in savings would seem to qualify as). I mean there might be other methods of gaining a visa (such as ancestry or family) but just "I have a lot of money and wish to retire the UK" isn't going to get you a visa.

 

[Howardh]

https://twitter.com/dave43law/status/1732041769095954696

No 10 seeks to calm concerns over £38,700 minimum income for family visas For spouses the income total can include some benefits and is household income not individual income

https://twitter.com/dave43law/status/1732066554370461876

Clarification from Home Office that the £38,000 income threshold for UK citizens wishing to bring a spouse applies to "the income from the UK-based partner" NOT joint income. Concern this effectively means only those among the top 25% of earners can afford to marry a foreigner

So that's cleared that up then.
Ye G......

 

[SuspectUsual]

I wouldn't describe Boris as a liar - I would describe him as a populist. He doesn't care what he says - truth, lies, fantasy or fact, as long as it will improve his popularity he's happy to say it in public. His lies are a lot more calculated than just being pathological

So you wouldn't describe him as a liar, but in the following two sentences tell us twice that he tells lies.

I'm baffled!

 

[nw1]

I think a sense of proportion might be required. Johnson was clearly unfit to be Prime Minister, but he was nowhere near as bad Trump. To take one example, Johnson resigned his position and Trump would never resign.

Threatening military action against a site in another (democratic) country which is supposedly an ally is just a little bit extreme though!

Agree it's not quite as bad as Trump, but this is clearly a threat of extreme action.

 

[edwin_m]

One thing Johnson and Trump share is over-competitiveness, the need to win the contest to the exclusion of all other considerations.

 

[dosxuk]

So you wouldn't describe him as a liar, but in the following two sentences tell us twice that he tells lies.

I'm baffled!

He's not lying just because he likes telling lies or is deliberately trying to mislead - he's lying because he just doesn't care whether he's lying or telling the truth.

 

[Howardh]

At PMQ's today, Sunak agreed that we will be taking refugees from Rwanda - presumably those that don't feel safe there; so that begs the question, how can Rwanda be a "safe" country when we will take refugees from it who aren't safe there??

 

[jon0844]

At PMQ's today, Sunak agreed that we will be taking refugees from Rwanda - presumably those that don't feel safe there; so that begs the question, how can Rwanda be a "safe" country when we will take refugees from it who aren't safe there??

I've never understood this and have always wondered why the supporters of the Rwanda scheme weren't up in arms about it.

Maybe it's because Rwanda is primarily Christian and we want rid of mostly Muslim asylum seekers?

 

[jfollows]

The complete shambles of the Conservative party laid bare today - Robert Jenrick, egged on by Suella Braverman no doubt (she was allowed to give a 'resignation speech' today even though she was sacked) - may be about to resign because the Rwanda legislation doesn't go "far enough" whilst Rishi Sunak is telling the 1922 Committee that the MPs need to choose between fighting the Labour Party or fighting each other.

EDIT Rwanda government has stated that it would have abandoned any plans for deportees if the UK had "disapplied" the ECHR. Basically Rwanda says that it won't support breaking international law.

 

[Howardh]

Reading now that Rwanda won't accept migrants if the UK breaks international law so if we follow Sunak's plan of changing/breaking/altering/leaving current laws to go ahead, then it will mean nothing as we would be able to send no-one to Rwanda.

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1732453413210730743

BREAKING: Rwanda government threatens to pull out of the deal if it does not adhere to international law. Hugely problematic - and potentially humiliating - for govt if its partner country decides the deal is too toxic.

 

[jfollows]

https://www.politicshome.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EB 061223&utm_content=EB 061223+CID_006af4f9d22e7613cc2c4992e43ec567&utm_source=Email newsletters&utm_term=Logo quotes:

Shortly after details of the bill were published, Rwanda's minister of foreign affairs Vincent Biruta released a statement underlining its own commitment to international law.

"It has always been important to both Rwanda and the UK that our rule of law partnership meets the highest standards of international law, and it places obligations on both the UK and Rwanda to act lawfully," he said.

"Without lawful behaviour by the UK, Rwanda would not be able to continue with the Migration and Economic Development Partnership.”

So Rwanda is telling the UK how to behave legally. The Blue Anarchist party trying to avoid legal requirements to get its own way.

 

[SuspectUsual]

This is proper through the looking glass stuff. An arbitrary statement that Rwanda is safe and an instruction that officials and the courts must always regard it as safe. There could literally be a civil war going on and apparently it’s still safe.

Today is yet another new low for this government

(Photo is an extract from the Rwanda bill published today)

 

[dgl]

Ah good, does this mean that cars no longer need MOT's, drugs don't need clinical trials, and products no longer need testing as all you need to do is just say your it's safe and as such it must be!
Well of the government can do it why can't everyone else.

 

[jfollows]

Robert Jenrick is not sitting in Parliament supporting James Cleverley making a statement on the planned legislation.
EDIT Yvette Cooper has just asked where he is in her reply for Labour.

 

[Howardh]

EDIT Yvette Cooper has just asked where he is in her reply for Labour.

A right roasting and the answer was jibberish.

 

[Purple Train]

This is proper through the looking glass stuff. An arbitrary statement that Rwanda is safe and an instruction that officials and the courts must always regard it as safe. There could literally be a civil war going on and apparently it’s still safe.

Today is yet another new low for this government

(Photo is an extract from the Rwanda bill published today)

And apparently it doesn't contain enough "la la la can't hear you" for some figures on the right of the party.

https://www.politicshome.com/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EB 061223&utm_content=EB 061223+CID_006af4f9d22e7613cc2c4992e43ec567&utm_source=Email newsletters&utm_term=Logo quotes:

So Rwanda is telling the UK how to behave legally. The Blue Anarchist party trying to avoid legal requirements to get its own way.

When a de facto one-party state, which has recently held elections rated as neither free nor fair, is holding the moral standard in relation to international law, you know things have gone quite, quite wrong.

 

[jfollows]

This is proper through the looking glass stuff. An arbitrary statement that Rwanda is safe and an instruction that officials and the courts must always regard it as safe. There could literally be a civil war going on and apparently it’s still safe.

Today is yet another new low for this government

(Photo is an extract from the Rwanda bill published today)

It's totally ludicrous.
It might as well say "every decision maker must treat the moon as being made of green cheese, and act accordingly."
Everyone knows that Rwanda isn't a safe country, but a large subset don't care that it isn't, they just want to (https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1732440291909517392) "bypass legal protections which exist to protect the most vulnerable people in the world from persecution, so that it can look tough before an election".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Dec 2023 ==

Sky now reporting that Jenrick is resigning, according to some of his friends.
EDIT Home Office minister Laura Farris has told LBC that he’s resigned now.

 

[brad465]

Robert Jenrick has resigned:

Robert Jenrick resigns as immigration minister over government's Rwanda plan - Home Office minister

Robert Jenrick has resigned from his post as immigration minister over the government's Rwanda plan, according to a Home Office minister.

news.sky.com

Robert Jenrick has resigned from his post as immigration minister over the government's Rwanda plan, according to a Home Office minister.

Mr Jenrick was missing from the frontbench as Home Secretary James Cleverly gave a statement to the Commons on the government's bid to rescue the deal to fly migrants who arrive illegally in the UK to Rwanda.


Reaction to Jenrick 'resignation': Follow live

Friends of Mr Jenrick have told Sky News he has resigned.

When asked by LBC if Mr Jenrick has resigned, Home Office minister Laura Farris said: "I understand that he has."

His departure comes after emergency legislation aimed at reviving the stalled Rwanda asylum policy avoided the most hard-line option to leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

This is something many on the right of the Tory party have called for, including former home secretary Suella Braverman.

 

[SuspectUsual]

So has honest Bob resigned because he’s discovered a hitherto long lost conscience or because the new bill doesn’t go far enough?

 

[jfollows]

So has honest Bob resigned because he’s discovered a hitherto long lost conscience or because the new bill doesn’t go far enough?

Because he wants to be on the winning side after the blood-letting in his party which is imminent, following its huge defeat in the next election if not before. The right will blame the Rwanda mess on Rishi.

 

[Gloster]

Is he going to be a lone resigner who has decided that his only hope is to hitch his wagon to Braverman’s train? Or will there once more be a stream of resignations who suddenly feel moved to quit on a point of principle before the ship gets Sun(a)k?

 

[TheSmiths82]

Is he going to be a lone resigner who has decided that his only hope is to hitch his wagon to Braverman’s train? Or will there once more be a stream of resignations who suddenly feel moved to quit on a point of principle before the ship gets Sun(a)k?

That is a very good question, I have a feeling at least another will resign but I think it might be a trickle rather than a flood. I have a feeling that this entire issue is what will finish this government though. Breaking international law has serious consequences.

 

[Howardh]

That is a very good question, I have a feeling at least another will resign but I think it might be a trickle rather than a flood. I have a feeling that this entire issue is what will finish this government though. Breaking international law has serious consequences.

Yes...Rwanda won't then accept boat people!!

As Cooper said, you couldn't make this up (and I can think of an adjective between "make" and "up").

 

[takno]

This is proper through the looking glass stuff. An arbitrary statement that Rwanda is safe and an instruction that officials and the courts must always regard it as safe. There could literally be a civil war going on and apparently it’s still safe.

Today is yet another new low for this government

(Photo is an extract from the Rwanda bill published today)

I'm going to generously assume that this isn't base incompetence, and suggest that this is actually a route out of the whole debacle. You publish this legislation, which is designed to get thrown out again by the courts (it almost certainly breaches a right to due process or something). Then Rwanda, having apparently already been paid anyway, pull out blaming the ECHR.

The government gets to wring it's poor tied hands, and use the whole thing as a get-out-of-jail-free card on the awful immigration figures. At the same time it's finally rid of Patel's ridiculous African adventure, and it seems has managed to get rid of Jenrick to boot.

I mean it's more likely to be more of the usual strategy-free spray-and-pray government, but I do like to occasionally dream that there's an adult in the room.

 

[jfollows]

I mean it's more likely to be more of the usual strategy-free spray-and-pray government, but I do like to occasionally dream that there's an adult in the room.

Good luck with that!
They're all panicking, and adopting ridiculous postures and short-term fixes because they all know they're going to lose the next election, but Reform UK (or whatever it's called this week) will kill their votes in key constituencies so more of them will lose their seats.
Jenrick said "the small boats crisis is a national emergency that is doing untold damage to our country" which is simply not true, not when compared to the economy, the health service, the state of local councils, and other things people have already mentioned.
Yes, it's something that's not right, but the problem is that the government appears to be totally out of control, and wants to appear "in control", even if the end result is not significant. It's become a dogmatic fixation of their own causing, because by going on about how they were going to "reduce immigration" they're aghast that this hasn't happened, and they're being blamed for it.
So Jenrick and others are preserving their hides to avoid losing their seats and to have ten or more years in opposition in the shadow cabinet rather than on the back benches.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Dec 2023 ==

On Jenrick in particular, Electoral Calculus currently predicts Reform UK taking more than 2x the number of votes of the predicted Labour majority. This is just a guess and a snapshot, but still Jenrick will want to buy back those Reform UK votes to increase the chance of holding his seat.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/calcwork23.py?seat=Newark includes

 

[Enthusiast]

Telling people that they can't come if they earn less than £38,700. That to me makes it almost impossible for many, many people - from all over the world including our so-called allies (if we have any anymore) - to come here.

I think that's probably the aim.

As the numbers over 80 increases the need for more carers, doctors, etc increases just as fast.

Something has just occurred to me. In fact I tell a lie. it occurred to me the first time the ridiculous notion of requiring young people to be imported to the country to look after the ever ageing population was first mentioned. What happens when the required carers, doctors, etc. themselves get old (as it seems likely they will)? Will they all return whence they came when they retire?

EDIT Rwanda government has stated that it would have abandoned any plans for deportees if the UK had "disapplied" the ECHR. Basically Rwanda says that it won't support breaking international law.

I don't know why the ECHR is regarded as "international law". It isn't law. It is an agreement - a treaty - freely entered into by the participants who can withdraw from it any time they choose. You can withdraw from a treaty, but you cannot withdraw from "the law".

Of course, unlike many other nations, the UK introduced its own domestic law (a proper law) which largely mirrors the ECHR and which makes life a bit more difficult. But that is not what the Rwandans were referring to. The ECHR (the Court) has no powers to enforce its decisions. This was clearly demonstrated just a couple of weeks ago, when France deported a suspected terrorist even though the ECHR had ruled against it:

If France can ignore the ECHR, why can’t we?

ECHR scepticism, far from being some outré view limited to a few far-right British head-bangers, is more widespread than it looks.

www.spectator.co.uk

...these events show that ECHR scepticism, far from being some outré view limited to a few far-right British head-bangers, is more widespread than it looks. Continental Europeans may be less ready to express impatience with human rights obstacles to dealing with dangerous foreigners, but such feelings are undoubtedly there. Indeed, they may even be stronger across the Channel. If the British government had behaved in this way, the establishment here would have raised merry hell with accusations of proto-fascism, cries of ‘breach of international law’ (which France’s action technically was), and solemn references by senior lawyers and legal academics to existential threats to the rule of law. The French action raised complaints from a few specialist pressure-groups like the Association droits de l’Homme en Asie Centrale, but does not seem to have had any more drastic effect. It didn’t even look to be trending much on social media.

To be clear, I believe the Rwanda plan is ludicrous. It will never work; the numbers involved are insignificant; the much lauded deterrent effect (which is praised as its main - if not only - advantage) is nothing like as strong as it's made out to be; and the UK will probably end up taking more asylum seekers from Rwanda than it sends there. But for Rwanda to express their "concerns" over the "breach of international law" is simply ridiculous.

Whatever their reasons for coming here, one thing is for sure - this country cannot continue to absorb an increase of more than a million people every eighteen months or so. The UK will have to devise another way to deal with its ageing population.

 

[Purple Train]

The resignation letter by Jenrick and reply by Sunak are astonishing. The BBC link can be found here and below are perhaps the most telling excerpts:

I have therefore consistently advocated for a clear piece of legislation that severely limits the opportunities for domestic and foreign courts to block or undermine the effectiveness of the policy.

One of the great advantages of our unwritten constitution is the unfettered power of our sovereign parliament to create law, and that is a power we must take full advantage of.

The government has a responsibility to place our vital national interests above highly contested interpretations of international law.

[...]

The deal we negotiated with Albania has led to a more than ninety per cent reduction in Albanians arriving illegally on small boats and has demonstrated that a fully functioning scheme with Rwanda will act as a powerful deterrent.

Our returns deal with Albania, that you were instrumental in securing, has cut Albanian arrivals by ninety per cent. These Albanian arrivals have far more recourse to the courts than people will under this new legislation.

[...]

It makes clear that Parliament deems Rwanda safe and no court can second guess that, it disapplies the relevant parts of the human rights act and makes clear that it is for ministers to decide whether or not to comply with any temporary injunctions issued by the European Court of Human Rights.

If we were to oust the courts entirely, we would collapse the entire scheme.

I have no words.

 

[Peterthegreat]

The resignation letter by Jenrick and reply by Sunak are astonishing. The BBC link can be found here and below are perhaps the most telling excerpts:





I have no words.

How would Mr Jenrick like it if the unfettered power of our sovereign parliament passed a law sentencing him to spend his last years in Rwanda?