The U.K. government Supreme Court ruling on Rwanda is being read out right now, and it's sounding like a No.
The U.K. government Supreme Court ruling on Rwanda is being read out right now, and it's sounding like a No.
Supreme Court Judge Reed is reading out all the reasons why the U.K. governments plan of sending refugees to Rwanda may be considered unlawful. It doesn't sound good for the U.K. government.
Yes! The Supreme Court in the U.K has ruled that it is unlawful to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.
I'm not a legal expert, and I look forward to seeing a proper assessment, but the Supreme Court judgement on the U.K. government's plan to offshore asylum seekers to Rwanda seems to be quite clear cut.
The ruling is that asylum seekers would definitely be at risk of refoulement, so it's unlawful. There are no grey areas.
"Today’s judgment should bring this shameful mark on the UK’s history to a close.
Never again should our government seek to shirk our country’s responsibility to offer sanctuary to those caught up in horrors around the world.
All the architects of the Rwanda plan may be gone but unless the government changes course and introduces a policy of safe passage, then the rest should follow them out the door."
Steve Smith,
Care4Calais,
U.K.
"Intentions and aspirations do not necessarily correspond to reality: the question is whether they are achievable in practice."
Verdict on the U.K. government, Judge Reed,
Supreme Court,
U.K.
In response to the U.K. Supreme Court's ruling on the Rwanda scheme, PM Sunak says the important thing is that the court ruled that it wasn't illegal to send refugees to a third country.
Never mind that this point has been long established in international law and had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this ruling.
He lost, and then he lost again, and now he's lying about the parts he says he won.
The Supreme Court also set out in some detail how the U.K. government's Rwanda scheme was unlawful under U.K. law, not just the ECHR.
Leaving the ECHR would do absolutely nothing to make the Rwanda scheme lawful.
I've got a feeling this won't stop the right wing nutjobs in the Tory party from banging on about having to leave the ECHR for the foreseeable.
And as sure as shit follows shovel, the right-wing nutjobs in the U.K. Tory party are already frothing at the mouth over the Supreme Court ruling that the Rwanda refugee deportation scheme is unlawful.
Gullis, Mogg, Anderson and the other ones have had a meeting this morning. They are calling for emergency legislation to override everything and keep Suella's dream alive.
Good luck with that.
In the U.K., Lee Anderson, deputy chair of the ruling Tory party is recommending that the government ignores the Supreme Court ruling that deporting refugees to Rwanda is unlawful. He thinks they 'should just stick them on a plane anyway'.
In any other country, we would call this an outrageous disregard for the rule of law. Here, we just call it a Wednesday.
Here we are. The actual deputy chair of the U.K. Conservative party, Lee Anderson, calling to ignore the law.
U.K. PM Rishi Sunak was just asked if he agreed with Lee Anderson's remarks that the U.K. government should ignore the law and just put refugees on plane to Rwanda.
Sunak said he shares Anderson's frustrations....
U.K. PM Sunak insists he will be bringing in emergency legislation to rule that Rwanda is a safe country to send refugees to, and to bypass the ECHR and the U.K. Supreme Court's ruling that it isn't.
This is a constitutional outrage. Also, it's just not going to happen, not this side of the election, and they are going to lose that.
As former U.K. Attorney General Dominic Grieve said about this subject "they're living in a fantasy world."
The main take away from today's announcement that the U.K. government is to introduce emergency legislation to deport refugees to Rwanda is that it's absolute nonsense. Unworkable nonsense
I'm telling you, it's nonsense. It's so much nonsense that we forget that Rwanda can only take about 375 asylum seekers per year and the U.K. has an average of 40,000 asylum seekers arriving per year. The amount of work they're putting in to solve less than 1% of the 'problem' is bizarre.
I never thought I'd be saying this but I'm looking at Lee Anderson's 'plan' to just ignore the law and stick asylum seekers on a plane to Rwanda, and Rishi Sunak's 'plan' to introduce emergency legislation to make it legal to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, and it's hard to see which one of them is stuck in the bigger fantasy.
Of the two, Anderson's has got more chance of actually happening.
Jesus.
Yup. Just passing a law saying somewhere is safe doesn't make it so.
This is all so amateur and desperate.
LeeAnderthal, please.
A knuckle dragging empty headed thug sounding off to the howling moon loons.
All this distraction, noise and smoke for a tiny percentage of the annual caseload, while the backlog simply grows.
@ProjectFearlessness @Waxingtonknee interestingly, his parliamentary office doesn’t answer the phone and his constituency office number is no longer listed - one can wonder why!
This is an elected servant of the people (yes, I know) who is suggesting laws be broken.
Bloody fascist🤢🤮
@ProjectFearlessness Interesting they explicitly also clarify: it's not the ECHR wot dun it. But our international obligations under other laws.
Presumably, far right Tories and Faragists will next insist the UK leave Earth to stop this infernal international meddling in our sovereignty.