Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[jfollows]

The Rwanda judgement is interesting in the sense that it doesn't say that sending refugees abroad is unlawful, but that the place to which they are sent has to be a safe place, free from risk of "refoulement" for example, and all the evidence (specifically from the UN) is that Rwanda is not such a place. Having a "promise" from the Rwanda government is not good enough.
EDIT The problem the government has is that any place deemed safe enough, one that does not have "a track record of serious human rights violations, including arbitrary detention, torture and the repression of free speech" (Amnesty, referring to Rwanda, reported at https://www.theguardian.com/politic...k-leadership-conservatives-uk-politics-latest) won't be interested in taking "our" refugees.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2023-0093-etc-judgment.pdf

“A country is a safe third country for a particular applicant, if:
(i) the applicant’s life and liberty will not be threatened on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion in that country;
(ii) the principle of non-refoulement will be respected in that country in accordance with the Refugee Convention;
(iii) the prohibition of removal, in violation of the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as laid down in international law, is respected in that country; and
(iv) the possibility exists to request refugee status and, if found to be a refugee, to receive protection in accordance with the Refugee Convention in that country.”

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2023 ==

To end with, from me, for now, Parliament is of course "supreme" and can pass a law "notwithstanding the existing laws" to make removal of refugees to places like Rwanda legal if it wants. But, more likely, if it's able to do so - I don't think it would be realistic even with a large majority and a three line whip, I suspect many more moderate Conservatives would vote against it.

 

[SuspectUsual]

The thing that amazes me perhaps more than anything in Braverman’s letter is the bit where she slams Sunak for not having a plan B in the event of the court finding the Rwanda policy unlawful, and congratulating herself for repeatedly pointing this out to him.

Maybe a little introspection might be in order and some reflection on whether it’s sensible for the government to continue to pursue a policy which it seems they were reasonably confident would be struck down in the courts

What is it in these people? Arrogance? Hubris? Narcissism?

 

[island]

To end with, from me, for now, Parliament is of course "supreme" and can pass a law "notwithstanding the existing laws" to make removal of refugees to places like Rwanda legal if it wants.

Agreed. The effect of section 3 of the Human Rights Act is (more or less) that a law which is to override the HRA must explicitly say it does. Even the current government might just resile from that.

But, more likely, if it's able to do so - I don't think it would be realistic even with a large majority and a three line whip, I suspect many more moderate Conservatives would vote against it.

Also agreed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't want to get into a creationism/religious debate because it is significantly off-topic and probably wouldn't end well, but - if you could please not perpetuate the fallacy that creationism is somehow incompatible with believing in evolution, that would be great I believe that God created the earth in seven days, but, equally, there is of course simple scientific and logical proof of natural selection, which I cannot and do not deny.

Colour me surprised. And even sweeter for being based on UK law! I think it was obvious to most people with any sort of emotional intelligence (even I found it fairly obvious, and I possess the emotional intelligence of a teaspoon, to misquote J.K. Rowling) that this was a totally unworkable plan based on a nasty concoction of spite and prejudice. I think a lot of dummies will have been hastily spat out this morning.

Given that you've just (correctly) asked someone else not to perpetuate a fallacy, might I ask you not to perpetuate the fallacy that support for the Rwanda plan was based on 'spite and prejudice'? Personally, I supported the idea in principle (while having doubts about the practicality of this particular plan) - and that support has nothing to do with any spite or prejudice: I supported the idea because it seems obvious to me that if we are to break the horrendously cruel trade in people smuggling across the Channel, with all the deaths and suffering that it causes, then - amongst other things - we have to remove the incentive for people to want to pay the smugglers. Sending people to Rwanda would have partially solved that by removing any economic incentives for people to want to cross the Channel, while at the same time still providing sanctuary for people found to be genuine refugees (at least to the extent that Rwanda could have done that - the court seems to have found that is questionable).

 

[takno]

To end with, from me, for now, Parliament is of course "supreme" and can pass a law "notwithstanding the existing laws" to make removal of refugees to places like Rwanda legal if it wants. But, more likely, if it's able to do so - I don't think it would be realistic even with a large majority and a three line whip, I suspect many more moderate Conservatives would vote against it.

The essential problem is that they would need parliament to pass a law removing the UK obstacle, then go through the entire injunction/appeal/supreme court process again on a European Human Rights basis before they could even justify voting on withdrawing. It's questionable whether they could manage that before an election, even if anybody in the government actually still wants to do it, and their MPs were up for it, which they probably aren't

 

[jfollows]

Lee Anderson says the government should ignore the law and send the refugees to Rwanda anyway! “Party of law and order”?

 

[SuspectUsual]

Lee Anderson says the government should ignore the law and send the refugees to Rwanda anyway! “Party of law and order”?

Partly law and order seems a bit more accurate

But exactly what I’d expect from him. A vile human being

 

[nw1]

Partly law and order seems a bit more accurate

But exactly what I’d expect from him. A vile human being

If Anderson is still in post and saying this kind of thing it says very bad things about Sunak.

Anderson: the person that makes Braverman seem like a bleeding-heart liberal, if that were possible.

 

[Howardh]

Rwanda ruling - I keep hearing that right-wingers (eg Gullis on TV this morning) wants us removed from the Euro Convention of Human Rights; however looking at the list of our rights (which would you be happy to lose? I think the right to a fair trail is so overrated...) I'm confused as to which one - if any - actually stop us deporting failed asylum seekers.

Also read above that some MP's such as Anderson (con) want the planes to take them anyway. Good luck in finding a pilot willing to break the law and lose his licence/livelihood!!

 

[Cross City]

a

Rwanda ruling - I keep hearing that right-wingers (eg Gullis on TV this morning) wants us removed from the Euro Convention of Human Rights;

Not going to happen because it's an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement

 

[bspahh]

Lee Anderson says the government should ignore the law and send the refugees to Rwanda anyway! “Party of law and order”?

Ben Quinn wrote:

Jonathan Gullis has come out of a meeting of Tory MPs: Need now for a Plan B which could involve dropping people back on French beaches or pushing boats back

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/status/1724746478818652162 replied with:

Real head scratcher, this one.

 

[birchesgreen]

It is just so stupid, they seem to only speak to pub bores and the kind of psycopath who used to write to newspapers in green ink now.

 

[jon0844]

I've often thought the Government is doing outrageous things so people will willingly vote for a loss of freedoms, because they'll think that leaving the ECHR means we can deport foreigners, and banning protests will stop 'hate marches'. Then shut down the press because it publishes fake news and so on.

Nobody can be unhappy about that can they?

Apart from having given up their own protections, right to protest, or to have a free press. Bit late once you've given it up though.

 

[Howardh]

I've often thought the Government is doing outrageous things so people will willingly vote for a loss of freedoms, because they'll think that leaving the ECHR means we can deport foreigners, and banning protests will stop 'hate marches'. Then shut down the press because it publishes fake news and so on.

Nobody can be unhappy about that can they?

Apart from having given up their own protections, right to protest, or to have a free press. Bit late once you've given it up though.

If anyone suggests losing out human rights, always ask which particular one are they so keen to lose.

 

[Purple Train]

Given that you've just (correctly) asked someone else not to perpetuate a fallacy, might I ask you not to perpetuate the fallacy that support for the Rwanda plan was based on 'spite and prejudice'? Personally, I supported the idea in principle (while having doubts about the practicality of this particular plan) - and that support has nothing to do with any spite or prejudice: I supported the idea because it seems obvious to me that if we are to break the horrendously cruel trade in people smuggling across the Channel, with all the deaths and suffering that it causes, then - amongst other things - we have to remove the incentive for people to want to pay the smugglers. Sending people to Rwanda would have partially solved that by removing any economic incentives for people to want to cross the Channel, while at the same time still providing sanctuary for people found to be genuine refugees (at least to the extent that Rwanda could have done that - the court seems to have found that is questionable).

My wording was rather OTT, sorry. But I maintain that the plan of sending migrants to Rwanda (with its questionable record on human rights) was not a plan made with the interests of the safety of the migrants at heart.

 

[jfollows]

Apart from having given up their own protections, right to protest, or to have a free press. Bit late once you've given it up though.

Like the right to live and work anywhere in the EU ..... oh well!

 

[Howardh]

Like the right to live and work anywhere in the EU ..... oh well!

..and retire! Just think of how much housing, surgery/hospital/care-homes space could be freed up if retirees had the right to live in the EU/EEA again! Seriously hoping that the debate over the ECHR (which I understand doesn't affect the Rwanda policy at all, but hey let's go for it) will re-ignite the debate over the EU and we might end up with a stay in EHCR and rejoin EU vs leave EHCR and stay out of the EU - and we get that referendum. Don't think many realise that the ECHR isn't an EU institution!

 

[DustyBin]

I've often thought the Government is doing outrageous things so people will willingly vote for a loss of freedoms, because they'll think that leaving the ECHR means we can deport foreigners, and banning protests will stop 'hate marches'. Then shut down the press because it publishes fake news and so on.

Nobody can be unhappy about that can they?

Apart from having given up their own protections, right to protest, or to have a free press. Bit late once you've given it up though.

I'm a fairly right wing conservative, so I'm not outraged by everything the government does in the way that some posters seemingly are. This however, is a genuine concern. It's not about being right or left, it's about basic rights as you say, which should concern everyone.

 

[ainsworth74]

That only works if the child is being given books to take home. If my memory serves me correctly, one of the specific things that raised concerns was a couple of years ago in Brighton, children were being shown powerpoints teaching - shall we say, controversial stuff regarding sex and gender that presented as hard facts stuff that was arguably opinion; and when some parents asked to see what was being taught in the slides, the local authority/schools flat out refused on the basis of protecting the intellectual property of the company that produced the slides. (I can't find the link to the story offhand so I'm hoping my memory is correct).

Regardless of these requirements, there are numerous reports of schools refusing to share contents of certain lessons with parents, citing grounds that they are copyright property of third party providers.

I'm not entirely convinced that refusing to hand over a copy of a slide deck or whatever specific handout is in question is incompatible with being told what your child is being taught? But in any case, at least as far as RSHE is concerned, it has been clarified that copyright law does not prevent schools sharing materials that they get from companies with parents who wish to know more:

Can parents see what is being taught in RSHE lessons?​

Yes. Parents should be able to see what their children are being taught in RSHE lessons. Schools must share teaching materials with parents.

We are clear that schools must make sure all content they use is factual and age-appropriate and talk to parents, so they are aware of what their children are being taught.

The Education Secretary has written to all schools in England to remind them of their duty to share RSHE materials with parents when asked to. The letter makes it clear that companies providing teaching resources can’t use copyright law to prevent schools from doing so due to the public interest in parents being aware of what their children are being taught.

Gillian Keegan has also written an open letter to parents, outlining their rights, and to ensure sure they feel confident asking their child’s school to share RSHE teaching materials.

So, parents can share these materials freely?​

A parent can share these materials with anyone who needs to see the materials, for example the other parents or carers. Or to use as evidence if they wish to make a complaint about the materials. However, a parent should not publish materials online or use commercially in any way. Doing so, would make the parents liable for breach of copyright.

Sex education: What is RSHE and can parents access curriculum materials? - The Education Hub

The Education Hub is a site for parents, pupils, education professionals and the media that captures all you need to know about the education system. You’ll find accessible, straightforward information on popular topics, Q&As, interviews, case studies, and more.

educationhub.blog.gov.uk

So, all a parent needs to do is check the website to learn more about what is being taught and if they have further questions pick up the phone and ask for more information. Parents are already, and have always been, empowered to learn about what their children are being taught. They do not require further powers to enable them to do this and perhaps the odd clarification now and again such as is the case with RSHE materials.

The rest of point 4 from the Braverman manifesto is just the usual culture war guff masquerading as concern for the wellbeing of children. The fact that we've managed to import the virulent anti-trans rhetoric from the US and have therefore seemingly totally lost any ability to have a sensible discussion about trans-rights and gender, how we balance the needs of this vulnerable minority against any legitimate concerns around the loss of single sex spaces is frankly utterly disappointing (though not at all surprising). It is an important issue that requires sensitive and delicate handling because right now anyone with gender dysmorphia or anything along those lines is being utterly failed and being vilified as some sort of raging predator to boot. The intervention of someone like Braverman does nothing to help and quite a lot to hinder.

If anyone suggests losing out human rights, always ask which particular one are they so keen to lose.

Typically they cherry pick a few here and there but fail to appreciate that their proposed remedy, chucking the ECHR in the bin, means that you're losing all of them and then totally reliant on the Government to grant you what you had before. Perhaps they like and trust this Government today to protect their rights. But how do they know the next one will be so generous? Or the one after that?

 

[zero]

Also harder for the UK given there's millions of people born before 1982 in Commonwealth countries, like Canada and Hong Kong, who have the right to live in the UK if they wish to. That alone can make it harder to reject applications for those who aren't eligible because they're too young - as they may have family in the UK.

Hong Kong isn't a Commonwealth country. Being born in Hong Kong or a Commonwealth country before 1982 doesn't give you the right to live in the UK, it generally only does if one or more of your parents was born in the UK, or you are a woman and are married to man who has the right to live in the UK.


Many of those people do have the right to live in the UK because they came to the UK when it was easier to do so and met the requirements to gain that right.

 

[jon0844]

Like the right to live and work anywhere in the EU ..... oh well!

Case in point. That was sold to the people as stopping EU citizens coming here. The fact we couldn't go the other way seemed to be forgotten.

 

[northwichcat]

Case in point. That was sold to the people as stopping EU citizens coming here. The fact we couldn't go the other way seemed to be forgotten.

And that's somewhere where an EU arrangement works better, than one with individual countries. The countries that can meet our short term labour shortages, are generally not the same ones that Brits want to move to.

 

[Enthusiast]

...however looking at the list of our rights (which would you be happy to lose? I think the right to a fair trail is so overrated...)

There would be no requirement to lose any. Adequate protections exist for people in the UK to guard against all the "rights" the ECHR confers. I believe there are 15 Articles in the Convention. Which of those do you suggest would be lost if the UK was to withdraw?

I'm confused as to which one - if any - actually stop us deporting failed asylum seekers.

Virtually all of them. Failed asylum seekers generally claim that their rights under the ECHR will not be respected in their country of origin.

 

[dgl]

Rishi now claims he will bring in legislation to deem Rwanda a safe place, umm that's not how it works, you can't just say somewhere is safe when it clearly isn't.

From BBC News

Rishi Sunak says he will introduce emergency legislation on the Rwanda asylum plan, after the Supreme Court ruled the scheme was unlawful
The prime minister says the legislation will "confirm Rwanda is safe", after the court said there was a "real risk" people could be sent back to places they fled from
Sunak says change is needed to prevent the "merry-go-round" of legal challenges the government has faced over their flagship policy
Earlier, Sunak said the government was already working on a new treaty with Rwanda
The government claims the plan would deter people crossing the Channel in small boats
Once in Rwanda, people could claim asylum there, return home, or seek asylum in a third country - but not the UK
Labour's Keir Starmer says the Rwanda proposals have been a "ridiculous, pathetic spectacle"

 

[Cross City]

“Rwanda is safe, trust me bro”.

No way this gets through the Lords or courts before a GE. Petty posturing from a dead man walking.

 

[ainsworth74]

Rishi now claims he will bring in legislation to deem Rwanda a safe place, umm that's not how it works, you can't just say somewhere is safe when it clearly isn't.

Why did this scene from the US Office suddenly come to mind?

 

[nw1]

Rishi now claims he will bring in legislation to deem Rwanda a safe place, umm that's not how it works, you can't just say somewhere is safe when it clearly isn't.

From BBC News

"I don't agree with the law, so I will change the law".

Governments should not be allowed to do this, otherwise they can basically side-step the law every time. (EDITED to correct missing "not")

 

[SuspectUsual]

"I don't agree with the law, so I will change the law".

Governments should be allowed to do this, otherwise they can basically side-step the law every time.

Er, yes, but not to change the law to something that is perverse and misleading

 

[bspahh]

Ipsos did a poll on November 13-14th

• Seven in ten (70%) think the removal of Suella Braverman as Home Secretary by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak was the right decision. Fewer than one in five say it was wrong. Six in ten (60%) 2019 Conservative voters think it was the right decision.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/just-one-four-think-david-camerons-government-did-good-job-foreign-affairs

Ipsos interviewed a random probability sample of 2,318 adults aged 18+ in Great Britain on the Ipsos KnowledgePanel between 13-14th November 2023. Data has been weighted to the known offline population proportions. All polls are subject to a wide range of potential sources of errors.

 

[birchesgreen]

I didn't know you could make something safe just by passing a law saying it was.

Can't wait for the Plutonium is safe on your chips bill of 2024.