EU law could stop UK sending migrants to Rwanda despite Brexit, lawyers tell Supreme Court

[Social Media]

EU laws could block the UK from sending asylum seekers to Rwanda despite Brexit, lawyers have argued in the Supreme Court.

The government is challenging a Court of Appeal ruling from June that its multimillion-pound plan to deport migrants to Rwanda to have their claims processed is unlawful.

 

Richard Drabble KC, who represents one of the asylum seekers who challenged being sent to the east African country, argued in the UK’s highest court on Wednesday that the UK was still signed up to a crucial part of EU law, which bans the removal of asylum seekers to a country where they have no connection.

 

The argument, if it is accepted, was described as a potential “knockout blow” for the government’s Rwanda deal by Supreme Court judge Lord Reed.

Mr Drabble told the court: “The EU bans removal of people to countries to which they have no connection ... that part of EU law has been retained in UK law following our removal from the European Union.”

He argued that the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 had withdrawn the UK from EU law relating to immigration, but had not mentioned asylum law.

 

“Immigration and asylum are distinct concepts in EU law, which are subject to distinct legal frameworks,” he said.

He added that UK lawmakers had “no intention to repeal a whole corpus of asylum rights” when they were writing the EU withdrawal act for Brexit

 

FULL STORY

 

[RayWright]

I'm no lawyer,  but speaking as the bloke from down the pub, if as Richard Drabble KC argues "The EU bans removal of people to countries to which they have no connection ... that part of EU law has been retained in UK law following our removal from the European Union.” 

So, as Rwanda is in Africa, and Africa is known as "The cradle of Humankind ", I.e. the place where we all originated from, deporting migrants / asylum seekers to Rwanda surely must be legal. Simples.

[Chomper Higgot]

Remember Ian Duncan Smith arguing there was no need for Parliament to read the details of the withdrawal agreement.

 

Seems someone took him up int absurdity.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

the UK was still signed up to a crucial part of EU law, which bans the removal of asylum seekers to a country where they have no connection.

and what connection do illegal immigrants have to the UK that they should be able to choose their safe haven?

The western world has gone mad, IMO.

[nauseus]

There are still hundreds of EU laws on the UK statute books. As the UK is no longer in the EU, they can be removed by special acts of parliament singly or en bloc. The main problem seems to be is that the UK is still signed up to the ECHR, which is how just one judge (somewhere but not the UK) managed to stop the first intended flight to Rwanda.

[Chomper Higgot]

39 minutes ago, nauseus said:

There are still hundreds of EU laws on the UK statute books. As the UK is no longer in the EU, they can be removed by special acts of parliament singly or en bloc. The main problem seems to be is that the UK is still signed up to the ECHR, which is how just one judge (somewhere but not the UK) managed to stop the first intended flight to Rwanda.

There are no EU laws on the UK Stature Book, they are all UK laws.

 

The mass repeal of those laws was one of Sunak’s quieter U-Turns, interestingly Rees-Mogg, whose mad idea it was and his chums in the ERG were also very quiet about that U-Turn.

 

The ECHR is nothing at all to do with the EU, the UK was a founding member.

 

Like Rees-Mogg’s ‘great repeal’ more stable heads won’t go near leaving the ECHR though Braverman says it’s in her agenda.

 

Perhaps it would have been a good idea to have read the BREXIT withdrawal agreement before signing it into law.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

and what connection do illegal immigrants have to the UK that they should be able to choose their safe haven?

The western world has gone mad, IMO.

The Rwanda Agreement is for the removal of asylum seekers (actually an exchange of asylum seekers).

It has absolutely nothing to do with ‘illegal immigrants’ since by condition of the agreement’s own clauses only ‘asylum seekers’ can be exchanged with Rwanda and ‘asylum seekers’ are not ‘illegal immigrants’.

 

 

[nauseus]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There are no EU laws on the UK Stature Book, they are all UK laws.

 

The mass repeal of those laws was one of Sunak’s quieter U-Turns, interestingly Rees-Mogg, whose mad idea it was and his chums in the ERG were also very quiet about that U-Turn.

 

The ECHR is nothing at all to do with the EU, the UK was a founding member.

 

Like Rees-Mogg’s ‘great repeal’ more stable heads won’t go near leaving the ECHR though Braverman says it’s in her agenda.

 

Perhaps it would have been a good idea to have read the BREXIT withdrawal agreement before signing it into law.

 

 

I didn't sign it.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, RayWright said:

I'm no lawyer,  but speaking as the bloke from down the pub, if as Richard Drabble KC argues "The EU bans removal of people to countries to which they have no connection ... that part of EU law has been retained in UK law following our removal from the European Union.” 

So, as Rwanda is in Africa, and Africa is known as "The cradle of Humankind ", I.e. the place where we all originated from, deporting migrants / asylum seekers to Rwanda surely must be legal. Simples.

Very good???? You claim not to be a lawyer???? If that's the case, can I suggest that you change career: You'll make a fortune.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

I didn't sign it.

Why would you, that was the Government’s job.

 

Shame they didn’t read it first.

 

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[nauseus]

22 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Why would you, that was the Government’s job.

 

Shame they didn’t read it first.

 

 

You're right.

 

We should have just left.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

You're right.

 

We should have just left.

Or at least have read the withdrawal agreement and tried your best to understand it.

[nauseus]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Or at least have read the withdrawal agreement and tried your best to understand it.

nag nag nag

[Chomper Higgot]

31 minutes ago, nauseus said:

nag nag nag

Sorry you don’t like the facts.

[JonnyF]

Headline is misleading. It is not EU law it is uk law now.

 

It should be changed and we should also leave the ECHR ASAP. 

 

England just beat Fiji as well. Marvellous. Cider I up landlord. Hic.

 

 

[RayC]

6 hours ago, nauseus said:

You're right.

 

We should have just left.

That was UKIP's idea (serve Article 50 the day after the referendum result). They also believed that the EU needed us more than we needed them. Presumably, this strategy was based on the belief that two wrongs make a right?

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

That was UKIP's idea (serve Article 50 the day after the referendum result). They also believed that the EU needed us more than we needed them. Presumably, this strategy was based on the belief that two wrongs make a right?

nag nag

 

[RayC]

3 hours ago, nauseus said:

nag nag

 

Indeed. More paperwork involved in transporting horses between the UK and EU states post-Brexit.

[Georgealbert]

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Headline is misleading. It is not EU law it is uk law now.

 

It should be changed and we should also leave the ECHR ASAP. 

 

England just beat Fiji as well. Marvellous. Cider I up landlord. Hic.

 

 

So we should leave the ECHR, and isolate ourself further from the Council of Europe, because we had a decision you don't like?

 

Did you know the Council of Europe was first suggested by Winston Churchill in 1943.

 

I have provided 2 links about the organisations, please try not to let you hatred of the EU, blinker you view.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights

[Chomper Higgot]

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Headline is misleading. It is not EU law it is uk law now.

 

It should be changed and we should also leave the ECHR ASAP. 

 

England just beat Fiji as well. Marvellous. Cider I up landlord. Hic.

 

 

Without the benefit of cider, it’s easier to understand that ‘the law’ is within the terms of the BREXIT withdrawal agreement, which is itself a Treaty.

 

The UK may not change the treaty without agreement with the other nation signatures to the treaty.

 

The UK could of course unilaterally renege on the treaty, but those outside the rightwing lunatic fringe understand the consequences of nations reneging on treaties.
 

Likewise the ECHR, membership of which underpins numerous treaties to which the UK is a signatory and also the cooperation between European nation courts and law enforcement and that of the UK.

 

By example, membership of the ECHR and human rights conventions is a central to the Good Friday Agreement. The UK has had its instructions from Washington on not messing with that tinderbox.

 

Just more examples of how Brexiteers are eager to continue to vandalize the UK’s international standing and get behind rightwing extremists within the UK Government seeking to strip rights and protections from the people of the UK.

 

Edited October 16, 2023 by Chomper Higgot

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/16/2023 at 12:00 PM, Georgealbert said:

So we should leave the ECHR, and isolate ourself further from the Council of Europe, because we had a decision you don't like?

 

Did you know the Council of Europe was first suggested by Winston Churchill in 1943.

 

I have provided 2 links about the organisations, please try not to let you hatred of the EU, blinker you view.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights

LOL.

I very much doubt Churchill envisaged the fiasco in Brussels, and IMO he didn't fight the Germans to give them power over Britain later.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL.

I very much doubt Churchill envisaged the fiasco in Brussels, and IMO he didn't fight the Germans to give them power over Britain later.

Nor did anyone, The Germans never had power over Britain in the EU and there was never a means to them to do so.

 

I doubt too Churchill intended that the UK would squander its sovereignty and self harm itself into taking orders from Washington, New Delhi and Beijing. 

 

[Georgealbert]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL.

I very much doubt Churchill envisaged the fiasco in Brussels, and IMO he didn't fight the Germans to give them power over Britain later.

Your knowledge of the UK, is the same as most of your posts, based on your own limited view of everything.

 

Why would someone from New Zealand even want to comment in a Thai forum on a UK issue. 
 

Life must be boring.

 

Please feel free to add me to your pages of blocked users (your own previous posting), that way you only have to read anything that agrees with you opinions.

Edited October 18, 2023 by Georgealbert

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

Your knowledge of the UK, is the same as most of your posts, based on your own limited view of everything.

 

Why would someone from New Zealand even want to comment in a Thai forum on a UK issue. 
 

Life must be boring.

 

Please feel free to add me to your pages of blocked users (your own previous posting), that way you only have to read anything that agrees with you opinions.

LOL. Another one that read a few posts from me and thinks they know everything about me.

Your wish is granted. I no longer need to read <deleted> from you.

Bye.

[Georgealbert]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Another one that read a few posts from me and thinks they know everything about me.

Your wish is granted. I no longer need to read <deleted> from you.

Bye.

Thank you

 

555555

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Another one that read a few posts from me and thinks they know everything about me.

Your wish is granted. I no longer need to read <deleted> from you.

Bye.

Shouts into an empty hall.

[RayC]

On 10/18/2023 at 1:39 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL.

I very much doubt Churchill envisaged the fiasco in Brussels, and IMO he didn't fight the Germans to give them power over Britain later.

You're wrong about Churchill's view of the EU. The likelihood is that he would very much approve of it.

 

(First link is Churchill's full Zurich speech. Second link is a summary)

 

https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1946-1963-elder-statesman/united-states-of-europe/

 

https://european-union.europa.eu/principles-countries-history/history-eu/eu-pioneers/winston-churchill_en