Rishi Sunak has staked his political credibility on pushing through emergency legislation to resurrect his high-profile plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, after the supreme court ruled it was unlawful.

During a combative press conference on Wednesday afternoon, hastily arranged after the five judges unanimously rejected the proposal, Sunak said legislation would end the “merry-go-round” of legal challenges by setting out in law that the east African country is safe.

 

Amid increasing pressure from the right of the Conservative party to commit to withdrawing from the European convention on human rights (ECHR), Sunak said he would “not allow a foreign court to block these flights”, but declined to say how.

“I am prepared to do what is necessary to get flights off. I will not take the easy way out,” the prime minister said, standing at a lectern bearing the “stop the boats” slogan.

A parallel plan for a new international treaty with Rwanda would provide “guarantees in law” that people deported from the UK would not be returned to their home countries, he added.

While a treaty would formalise the previous memorandum of understanding with Rwanda, Whitehall sources said this could take more than a year and then be challenged in the courts.

The supreme court’s judgment, read out by Lord Reed, its president, said all five judges agreed with the court of appeal that there was a real risk of asylum claims being wrongly determined in Rwanda, resulting in people being wrongly returned to their country of origin and facing persecution.

 

FULL STORY

3 minutes ago, CharlieH said:

Amid increasing pressure from the right of the Conservative party to commit to withdrawing from the European convention on human rights (ECHR), Sunak said he would “not allow a foreign court to block these flights”, but declined to say how.

 

Bad news, Rishi... The judge clearly stated in his verdict that there are also obligations under both domestic and UN law.

 

I'm sure minor details like that won't be mentioned by your friends in the Tory press, so you'll no doubt have your culture war. But it won't win you enough votes this time...

29 minutes ago, JayClay said:

 

Bad news, Rishi... The judge clearly stated in his verdict that there are also obligations under both domestic and UN law.

 

I'm sure minor details like that won't be mentioned by your friends in the Tory press, so you'll no doubt have your culture war. But it won't win you enough votes this time...

Fully agree
 

The leaving/blaming ECHR is just headline grabbing to please the extreme right of the tory party.

 

It will also please those voters who never read past those headlines, and I am sure a few of them will be along soon, to add their views in this thread.

 

They will never read the judgement, never understand the ruling, never believe the facts and then tell us they speak for everyone, and are never wrong.

If we leave the ECHR we will join Belarus, Russia and Kosovo (if counted as an independent state) as the only European countries outside of the convention. Says it all.

The trajectory of the UK towards abolishing human rights at a record pace is a bit worrying.

 

To "solve" the problem by just declaring Rwanda safe by law is a bit boneheaded. You can't redefine reality via law and expect everything to be fine.

Emergency legislation to say black is white, day is night, evil is good.

 

That is sure to work.

Somebody remind Sunak that the Good Friday Agreement (I believe he’s heard of it) is founded in no insufficient part on the ECHR.

 

I suggest he calms down before he gets a call from Washington telling him to behave himself.

On 11/16/2023 at 2:53 PM, JayClay said:

 

Bad news, Rishi... The judge clearly stated in his verdict that there are also obligations under both domestic and UN law.

 

I'm sure minor details like that won't be mentioned by your friends in the Tory press, so you'll no doubt have your culture war. But it won't win you enough votes this time...

Domestic law can be changed and if the UN loves them so much send them all to New York where the UN can look after them.

On 11/16/2023 at 4:11 PM, eisfeld said:

The trajectory of the UK towards abolishing human rights at a record pace is a bit worrying.

 

To "solve" the problem by just declaring Rwanda safe by law is a bit boneheaded. You can't redefine reality via law and expect everything to be fine.

Since when was the law anything but an <deleted>?

On 11/24/2023 at 8:27 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Since when was the law anything but an <deleted>?

 

Exactly. This is 2023 where a woman can declare themselves a man, a man can declare himself a 13 year old girl and a child can declare himself a cat.

 

So why can't we declare Rwanda safe? It's our truth.

 

But seriously - Rwanda is pretty safe. Probably safer than being a Jew in London.

 

Sad times.

43 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

But seriously - Rwanda is pretty safe. Probably safer than being a Jew in London

 

Is that conclusion based on data analysis or your recent personal experience of both London and Rwanda?

Edited November 25, 20232 yr by RayC
Grammar

14 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Is that conclusion based on data analysis or your recent personal experience of both London and Rwanda?

 

I have video evidence of calls for Jewish women and their daughters to be raped on the streets of London. I am sure you have seen it.

 

If you have similar video evidence for threats against these Rwandan refugees please present it.

Good news, send them all out.

My daughter has to pay 13,000 GBP a year Uni fees, as a foreign student, despite being British. People who arrive on a rubber dingy are living in hotels, disgraceful.

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I have video evidence of calls for Jewish women and their daughters to be raped on the streets of London.

Calls by whom?

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

I have video evidence of calls for Jewish women and their daughters to be raped on the streets of London. I am sure you have seen it.

 

If you have similar video evidence for threats against these Rwandan refugees please present it.

 

If those involved with this video are UK citizens, then I sincerely hope that they are found and brought to justice.

However, you are being sensationalist. London has not morphed into 1940's Berlin over the last month.

 

As for Rwanda. Here's what the US state thinks about it. You fancy sending your family and friends to live there?

https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/rwanda/#:~:text=Significant human rights issues included,or detainees%3B transnational repression against

It's not a problem just for the UK, Irish Republic in the news right now, also Italy, Germany and The Netherlands have huge problems with illegal migrants.

 

Letting untold numbers of Albanians in the UK is going to cause big problems down the line

Why is Rwanda agreeing to this? Will a major amount of money change hands? 

1 hour ago, JemJem said:

Why is Rwanda agreeing to this? Will a major amount of money change hands? 

 

It would have. £120m plus £20 - £30m per refugee rehoused in Rwanda.

On 11/25/2023 at 3:16 PM, JonnyF said:

 

Exactly. This is 2023 where a woman can declare themselves a man, a man can declare himself a 13 year old girl and a child can declare himself a cat.

 

So why can't we declare Rwanda safe? It's our truth.

 

But seriously - Rwanda is pretty safe. Probably safer than being a Jew in London.

 

Sad times.

Certainly safer than being a Palestinian in Gaza.

 

I'm constantly bemused by claims that anyone has a "right" to be taken care of by British taxpayers as long as they can arrive on a leaky rubber boat. If it's the "law", then the "law" or rather the <deleted>s that wrote it is/ are <deleted>, In My Opinion.

If Thailand had the same nuttso laws, I could have turned up on a leaky rubber boat and be living the life of Riley there. Unfortunately it doesn't, so kudos to them for not being sucked into the morass of western lunacy.

15 hours ago, JemJem said:

Why is Rwanda agreeing to this? Will a major amount of money change hands? 

Is that a rhetorical question? Obviously a great deal of money is involved, though I suspect a great deal of subterfuge is being used to avoid telling the British taxpayer just how much is involved.

20 hours ago, Neeranam said:

Calls by whom?

One suspects the "evidence" is not true beyond the shadow of a doubt.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

One suspects the "evidence" is not true beyond the shadow of a doubt.

 

@thaibeachlovers

 

Probably.

On the other hand, one have no doubts you'd parrot it without hesitation if it was the other way around.

On 11/25/2023 at 1:11 PM, Neeranam said:

Calls by whom?

 

Let's be polite and call them "supporters of Palestine".

 

 

On 11/26/2023 at 9:59 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

One suspects the "evidence" is not true beyond the shadow of a doubt.

 

Check my post above (video evidence) and then let me know if it is true or not. 

On 11/27/2023 at 5:49 PM, JonnyF said:

 

Check my post above (video evidence) and then let me know if it is true or not. 

Pull the other one, LOL.

All I could hear was some shouting and lots of bleeping out of what was said, and of course we don't know what was said from that. In any event it was one or two cars involved and not thousands of people.

Hardly "evidence" of wide spread anti semitism.

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Pull the other one, LOL.

All I could hear was some shouting and lots of bleeping out of what was said, and of course we don't know what was said from that. In any event it was one or two cars involved and not thousands of people.

Hardly "evidence" of wide spread anti semitism.

You only heard what you wanted to hear... like so any others on this forum

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Pull the other one, LOL.

All I could hear was some shouting and lots of bleeping out of what was said, and of course we don't know what was said from that. In any event it was one or two cars involved and not thousands of people.

Hardly "evidence" of wide spread anti semitism.

 

I see. When the evidence you requested is presented, you resort to gaslighting .

16 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

I see. When the evidence you requested is presented, you resort to gaslighting .

Lol, far from evidence for your claim 

"But seriously - Rwanda is pretty safe. Probably safer than being a Jew in London."

 

Just now, stevenl said:

Lol, far from evidence for your claim 

"But seriously - Rwanda is pretty safe. Probably safer than being a Jew in London."

 

 

Like I said, if you have evidence of Rwandans driving around the capital calling for Rwandan women and their daughters to be raped, please present it.

 

I presented evidence of it for Jews in London. So over to you...

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Like I said, if you have evidence of Rwandans driving around the capital calling for Rwandan women and their daughters to be raped, please present it.

 

I presented evidence of it for Jews in London. So over to you...

You made a claim, presented a video that doesn't show evidence of your claim. "But seriously - Rwanda is pretty safe. Probably safer than being a Jew in London"