Government Rwanda plan ...

[motorbiking]

I think they knew this already and it was part of the reason Sue-ellen was sacked. It will unfortunately result in people being left in limbo and more money being spent working through the objections.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Genuine question... Could the govt stay in the ECHR but just ignore its opinions on immigration? What happens if they tell the govt they must or must not do this or that and they just ignore it?

It's definitely a major issue, and the ECHR appears to be an obstacle. Unfortunately party politics is getting in the way of proper debate about how to deal with it. Labour hasn't suggested any solutions.

 

[Roy Bloom]

I think they knew this already and it was part of the reason Sue-ellen was sacked. It will unfortunately result in people being left in limbo and more money being spent working through the objections.

So do you think the Supreme Court tipped the wink to the government over a week ago? I think that's highly unlikely.
Or did the government know, before the appeal, that it would fail? That sounds like a typical tory waste of money.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Genuine question... Could the govt stay in the ECHR but just ignore its opinions on immigration? What happens if they tell the govt they must or must not do this or that and they just ignore it?

It's definitely a major issue, and the ECHR appears to be an obstacle. Unfortunately party politics is getting in the way of proper debate about how to deal with it. Labour hasn't suggested any solutions.

You're either a signatory to the ECHR or you're not.
You can't pick and choose which bits/judgements you want to observe.
It's a Court of Human Rights, not an agreement, or charter.
There is a charter, but that isn't what is signed up for. You sign up to recognise the court and its judgements.

The court isn't an obstacle. The rasion d'etre of the court is to protect the individuals against unjust government actions, policies or judgements.

 

[Lower]

Plan B is more plan A. They now want a treaty with Rwanda that enshrines that asylum seekers will not be returned to their own countries, rather than a memorandum of understanding.

 

[motorbiking]

I think the government's lawyers were one step ahead. Interim measures are a bit of a loop hole. The ruling is 5 or 6 cases with 500 points. It will take some time to read. But:

- yes ECHR can be/is sometimes ignored by a state - it has limited powers to enforce.
- the issue is not that the ECHR has blocked it, its that the Supreme Court has upheld the divisional courts ruling that it is incompatible

 

[Roy Bloom]

Plan B is more plan A. They now want a treaty with Rwanda that enshrines that asylum seekers will not be returned to their own countries, rather than a memorandum of understanding.

That's a non-starter because the Supreme Court has already declared Rwanda to be unsafe for asylum seekers.
Any treaty with a country that has been declared unsafe for asylum seekers cannot be guaranteed, by a third country treaty, to be safe for asylum seekers.
What do we do if they break the treaty? Not send any more asylum seeekers. That's too late.

 

[Roy Bloom]

- yes ECHR can be/is sometimes ignored by a state - it has limited powers to enforce.

Yes, ECHR judgements can be ignored, but at the peril of being chucked out of the ECHR.
Ot being heavily fined, of course.
If UK want to stay in the ECHR, they'll need to respect their judgements.

When the European Court of Human Rights finishes deciding a case, it issues a judgment. If it rules that someone’s rights were violated, it instructs the country at fault to do two things: compensate the individual who won the case, and implement any changes necessary at a national level to avoid repeat violations.

But the court doesn’t tell the country how to fix the problem; just that it needs to do so. It can issue recommendations, but it’s ultimately up to the country to decide what needs to be done.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

We're still on Plan A, which is open borders while pretending they give a ****, keeping wages nice and low and bosses nice and rich.

Labour seems to have a very similar plan, or at least hasn't suggested anything different.

Neither party wants to actually stop it.

That's the real issue but people fall/love for the slogans.

Until there's a proper system established things won't change

 

[ajohn]

Rwanda?

Yes aid but the numbers they appeared to be happy to receive appeared to be rather low.

A certain sacked loud mouth will continue making noises while completely ignoring problems.

 

[denso13]

It's definitely a major issue, and the ECHR appears to be an obstacle.

In what way though? What does it stop the government doing?

 

[JP_]

So, what do Cruella actually achieve than?

 

[ThaBoom]

Who benefited financially from the Rwanda plan?

Arsenal FC

 

[Lower]

That's a non-starter because the Supreme Court has already declared Rwanda to be unsafe for asylum seekers.
Any treaty with a country that has been declared unsafe for asylum seekers cannot be guaranteed, by a third country treaty, to be safe for asylum seekers.
What do we do if they break the treaty? Not send any more asylum seeekers. That's too late.

That's not factually correct. The Supreme court have decided that that there was a risk that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda might be returned to their country of origin where they might face ill treatment, not that Rwanda was by definition an unsafe country. The government could legislate to declare Rwanda a safe country which in turn overule the supreme court objection by defining safe countries (not currently defined i believe) or could put a legally binding treaty in place with Rwanda that defines whether asylum seekers can be returned to their original countries.

Semantics i know, but the legal reality.

It is undoubtedly a **** up by the government who could have spent however long this has been going through the courts tieing up the loose ends properly by doing either of the above so that the legal challenge had no legal grounds.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

Been watching them on PMQs today, they just spout the same old garbage. 'We're tough and getting tougher on the small boat situation.' Eh?!? 'We need to target the criminals who are exploiting these people and making significant financial gain.' So how's that going?

Waffle waffle waffle and the boats keep coming and the criminals behind it get ever richer.

Said it before, they either don't want to and/or can't stop the boats. Either way it's a sh1t show.