|
Post by wb61 on Dec 6, 2023 16:55:03 GMT
This is the Key provision for lawyers:
2 Safety of the Republic of Rwanda (1) Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country. (2) A decision-maker means— (a) the Secretary of State or an immigration officer when making a decision relating to the removal of a person to the Republic of Rwanda under any provision of, or made under, the Immigration Acts; (b) a court or tribunal when considering a decision of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer mentioned in paragraph (a). (3) As a result of subsection (1), a court or tribunal must not consider a review of, or an appeal against, a decision of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer relating to the removal of a person to the Republic of Rwanda to the 2 Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill extent that the review or appeal is brought on the grounds that the Republic of Rwanda is not a safe country.
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Dec 6, 2023 16:56:36 GMT
the remainder of clause 2 limiting the powers of the courts:
(4) In particular, a court or tribunal must not consider— (a) any claim or complaint that the Republic of Rwanda will or may remove or send a person to another State in contravention of any of its international obligations, including in particular its obligations under the Refugee Convention, (b) any claim or complaint that a person will not receive fair and proper consideration of an asylum, or other similar, claim in the Republic of Rwanda, or (c) any claim or complaint that the Republic of Rwanda will not act in accordance with the Rwanda Treaty. (5) Subsections (3) and (4) apply notwithstanding— (a) any provision made by or under the Immigration Acts, (b) the Human Rights Act 1998, to the extent disapplied by section 3 (disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998), (c) any other provision or rule of domestic law (including any common law), and (d) any interpretation of international law by the court or tribunal.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 5,913
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 6, 2023 17:00:32 GMT
Redfield Wilton blue wall
Labour leads by 1% in the Blue Wall.
Blue Wall Westminster Voting Intention (4 Dec.):
Labour 30% (-4) Conservative 29% (-1) Liberal Democrat 26% (+1) Reform UK 11% (+5) Green 3% (-1) Other 1% (–)
Changes +/- 5 Nov.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 6, 2023 17:02:05 GMT
I will be surprised if the Lords allow this through - though they have proved spineless in the past by giving way in the end even when proposed Legislation was not covered by the Salisbury convention.
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Dec 6, 2023 17:03:26 GMT
And here is the Biggy
3 Disapplication of the Human Rights Act 1998 (1) The provisions of this Act apply notwithstanding the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, which are disapplied as follows. (2) The relevant provisions are— (a) section 2 (interpretation of Convention rights), (b) section 3 (interpretation of legislation), and (c) sections 6 to 9 (acts of public authorities).
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Dec 6, 2023 17:06:30 GMT
If the ECHR makes an order on an interim basis preventing deportation (as happened when the first flight was to take off) the following clause will have application if passed:
It is for a Minister of the Crown (and only a Minister of the Crown) to decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure.
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Dec 6, 2023 17:08:36 GMT
On a quick reading of the Bill it is an attempt to remove the power of the European Convention on Human Rights and enforcement by the ECHR without actually withdrawing from the convention.
Can't see the House of Lords going for that.
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Dec 6, 2023 17:11:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 6, 2023 17:20:17 GMT
On a quick reading of the Bill it is an attempt to remove the power of the European Convention on Human Rights and enforcement by the ECHR without actually withdrawing from the convention. Can't see the House of Lords going for that. I hope not but the House of Lords can generally be relied upon to back down at the last minute.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,318
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 6, 2023 17:24:45 GMT
Clause 1 sub-clause 2 this Act gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Republic of Rwanda is a safe country. Clause 1 sub-clause 2 this Act gives effect to the judgement of Parliament that the Sun is black, the moon is made of green cheese and the Earth is flat.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,318
|
Post by pjw1961 on Dec 6, 2023 17:27:15 GMT
This is the Key provision for lawyers: 2 Safety of the Republic of Rwanda (1) Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country. (2) A decision-maker means— (a) the Secretary of State or an immigration officer when making a decision relating to the removal of a person to the Republic of Rwanda under any provision of, or made under, the Immigration Acts; (b) a court or tribunal when considering a decision of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer mentioned in paragraph (a). (3) As a result of subsection (1), a court or tribunal must not consider a review of, or an appeal against, a decision of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer relating to the removal of a person to the Republic of Rwanda to the 2 Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill extent that the review or appeal is brought on the grounds that the Republic of Rwanda is not a safe country. 2 Blackness of the Sun, Cheesyness of the Moon and Flatness of the Earth (1) Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Sun as black, the Moon as made of green cheese and the Earth as flat - because we say so.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 6, 2023 17:27:43 GMT
I've just watched some edited "highlights" of Johnson's evidence and questioning at today's COVID Inquiry hearings.
He is an utter embarrassment, not just in terms of his personal appearance, but also in terms of his pathetic non-answers and shifty evasions. The joke died long ago. We're talking about thousands of people's lives here.
The fact that this apology of a statesman and politician ever got anywhere near the role of Prime Minister should shame the party that enabled him and sycophantically prolonged his disastrous time in office.
And maybe shame the dysfunctional political system and culture that begot him too.
I couldn't decide, having watched his performance today, whether I should have felt sadness, anger or humiliation.
He was my Prime Minister for three and a half years. Humiliation is probably what we should all feel, on reflection.
|
|
|
Post by lens on Dec 6, 2023 17:36:38 GMT
On The Waterfront as Charlie, superb but I think his choice to appear in The Illustrated Man probably led to his career faltering. He played a great part but the film was too much for the mainstream audience and his popularity. He apparently turned down the lead in Patton because of his experience in the military in WWII and didn't want to glorify war. It does have a number of historical inaccuracies that annoy the historian in me (especially the imaginary artillery victory over attacking Germans in North Africa). I haven't dared go and see the new Napoleon film as I know I would be chucking things at the screen. And don't get me started on Braveheart If you're looking for a film with historical inaccuracies, then I'd say "The Imitation Game" stands head and shoulders above any other film! They just about manage to spell "Alan Turing" correctly, but that's roughly where the accuracy ends. Not just bits of detail either, it's matters absolutely fundamental. In particular, Turing was never building the Bombe supposedly against the wishes of colleagues and management, and neither for that matter was he the first person to work out the principles of how to do it. That honour goes to three Polish mathematicians, who shared their work with Bletchley Park in 1939. Turing built on their work, and with various insights vastly improved the design, but it was always an official BP project, and far from him working on it alone the physical construction was contracted out to a commercial business.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,605
|
Post by Danny on Dec 6, 2023 17:40:09 GMT
Quick correction to some of my previous comments where I've said someone (hopefully Wes given CON have just CONtinued the 'money pit' model) needs to be honest that the NHS in it's current form is unsustainable and that we need a "European" model. I noticed a few pages back I posted 'the NHS is in a state of collapse'. Well, I guess thats true and was in passing about something, but its equally true to say the NHS is adapting well to changes imposed upon it by government. Its basic model is to ration care as necessary for current funding. That is accomplished by lengthening waiting lists in services deemed less important. Sometimes the medical decisons are being altered by imposed government instructions, such as to prioritise cancer care. Which perfectly well might not be the best use of available money since its a political decision not a medical one. However I really dont see any evidence except that the greater involvement of private sector there is in any national medical service, the more costs rise. The real heart of the NHS is getting the most out of a limited budget, which is what it has always done. And adapting to the cyclic withdrawal of funding by conservative governments and increases in funding from labour ones.
|
|
|
Post by athena on Dec 6, 2023 17:41:33 GMT
Wow. So the govt really is going to try to legislate to say that black is white. Extraordinary.
I listened to a rather good discussion programme with Jonathan Sumption and Helena Kennedy about all of this in the wake of the Supreme Court judgement on the original scheme. Both of them made the point that the Supreme Court's decision that Rwanda was unsafe was based on a careful evaluation of the evidence and took a fairly dim view of the government turning round and telling a group of the UK's best legal minds that they'd got the conclusion wrong.
Sumption was contemptuous of the idea that the government would try to legislate a fact, but that seems to be what they intend to try to do. He also said that a new treaty with Rwanda wouldn't help because Rwanda wasn't institutionally strong enough to be regarded as trustworthy when it came to promises about what would and would not happen to asylum seekers sent there for processing. Both also argued that provisions for the safety of asylum seekers were written into several laws and included in international treaties that we've ratified (I forget the exact details), such that leaving the ECHR would not be sufficient to rid us of our obligations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2023 17:43:39 GMT
PS Your BBC link comes back with "404 Page cannot be found" (same 'error' as the LAB link to Starmer's 10pledges ). If you let me the know the title then I'm sure I can find it (or get the gist of it) and then can go back to 'temporary closed' until some new event. Sorry about that. You can do x it elsewhere. Zelensky spat with US Congress over funding....critical state of the war etc.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Dec 6, 2023 17:53:50 GMT
Listening to Sam Coates on Sky just now, he made the point for the second time I have heard this week, that it might not be letters to the 1922 chair that might decide Sunak's fate.
Rather, CON MPs are so fundamentally divided, e.g. the substantial Braverman 'hawk' faction and the 'One Nation' group, (apparently over 100 strong), that whatever Sunak does over Rwanda, for example, he is going to alienate one or other of these two groupings.
The government has already been defeated this week on a relatively uncontroversial issue, with 20+ CON MPs voting against a three line whip, so rebellion is in the air. The Rwanda legislation is a much more polarising issue, and one or other of the above groups is likely to be mightily unhappy with whatever is proposed, thinking it either goes too far or not far enough, and is a 'red line' for them.
Sam Coates accordingly feels that a legislative defeat, rather than a visit from men in grey suits, might lead to Sunak's fall. He might be on to something there.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 5,913
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 6, 2023 17:56:53 GMT
Suggestions that Jenrick is on the verge of resigning
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 6, 2023 17:59:49 GMT
I wonder what Sam Coates means by Sunak's 'fall'.Is he referring to Sunak stepping down as PM in the event of a legtislative defeat? Or to Sunak seeking a Dissolution and a GE early in 2024?
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 6, 2023 18:01:02 GMT
Two issues here, which, for me, flag up just how desperately poor Westminster governance is. We have first the government defeat in the commons over the contaminated blood scandal - www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/05/rishi-sunak-suffers-first-parliamentary-defeat-in-infected-blood-vote (credit to Labour for this). The defeat was only on the delay to setting up a compensatory body so compensation could be distributed quickly (although 'quickly' here is something of a grim joke). This story is a second example - www.theguardian.com/football/2023/dec/06/government-rejects-hillsborough-law-but-adopts-charterIn this case, it's taken the government six years to respond to a report over the handling of the Hillsborough deaths. Six years! This isn't a partisan point. Labour has been complicit in it's share of epic delays to justice. It's just that, for whatever reason, our system is appalling at making decisions, and is particularly appalling when it comes to rectifying obvious mistakes. It's almost as if we need to wait for the individuals involved to die before admitting anything went wrong. If that take 50 years, then it takes 50 years. It's just so depressing to see a system of governance that is so poor at representing the best interests of the people who they are meant to represent. That Hillsborough report could have been read in a week and responded to in a month. The contaminated blood victims are dying on a weekly basis before compensation arrives, which is morally reprehensible. No one seems to be able to get a grip and make things happen.
|
|
|
Post by isa on Dec 6, 2023 18:06:47 GMT
I wonder what Sam Coates means by Sunak's 'fall'.Is he referring to Sunak stepping down as PM in the event of a legtislative defeat? Or to Sunak seeking a Dissolution and a GE early in 2024? Well, he's obviously just speculating at present, but a Commons defeat could obviously set off an unpredictable chain of events, none of which would be good news for Sunak or his administration.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,098
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Dec 6, 2023 18:06:57 GMT
What odds now on a January election ?
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,605
|
Post by Danny on Dec 6, 2023 18:12:04 GMT
An interesting clause in respect of the treaty between UK and Rwanda that any person removed to the Republic of Rwanda under the provisions of the Treaty (a “relocated individual”) will not be removed from Rwanda except to the United Kingdom; Does it anywhere ban executing or imprisoning them?
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 5,913
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 6, 2023 18:12:42 GMT
So the Rwanda legislation will mean the UK HRA will not apply, but individuals can appeal to the ECHR In effect they are taking the powers from the UK Courts and giving them to the European Court of Human Rights Seems a strange way of taking back ontrol...
Personally I can't see this dogs dinner of an Act getting through Parliament
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Dec 6, 2023 18:13:11 GMT
Steve - would be May, with a new leader promising to seek a mandate from the people.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 6, 2023 18:14:43 GMT
What odds now on a January election ? Not very likely really. Already the earliest possible Thursday for a GE would be 18th January - and by next week it will be 25th January. I doubt that a GE will now be called this year - by the time Parliament returns from Recess in early January I suspect the earliest date would be 15th February.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 5,913
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 6, 2023 18:16:41 GMT
Reports Jenrick has resigned, not confirmed yet
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on Dec 6, 2023 18:17:49 GMT
PS Your BBC link comes back with "404 Page cannot be found" (same 'error' as the LAB link to Starmer's 10pledges ). If you let me the know the title then I'm sure I can find it (or get the gist of it) and then I can go back to 'temporary closed' until some new event. Sorry about that. You can do x it elsewhere. Zelensky spat with US Congress over funding....critical state of the war etc. Thanks, found it: Zelensky abruptly cancels US Senate briefing amid funding rowwww.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67585902We've discussed the likelihood that US and most of Europe gets 'bored' with the war in Ukraine in the past. Very concerning and whilst I haven't been a fan of Shapps in the past then I totally agree with him: "Mr Shapps rejected calls for Western allies to quietly persuade Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy to consider a peace agreement with Russia.
"It can only be for Ukraine to decide how and at what point they want to talk about those kinds of things," he said."That's not a decision that others can make for them. So we will stand with Ukraine for as long as they need to continue fighting this war." www.itv.com/news/2023-12-05/grant-shapps-the-world-cannot-give-up-and-get-bored-of-ukraine-war
Appreciate the recent discussion but back to 'temporary closed' for me as I've posted my views on the recent 'immigration' events and likely (non)impact on polling - although it's not impossible that LAB slip back as those in the Real World start to realise that Starmer-LAB is a Tory Party and LAB's very high loyalty from GE'19 starts to slip (ie the big difference between CON'19 and LAB'19 DKs starts to narrow from the LAB side and that sees a drop in LAB's lead in the headline VI). However, since Starmer can afford to lose some votes in safe LAB seats then CONtinuing to try to win CON'19 voters (Torygraph types) is a sensible strategy for him to pursue given a lot of folks will vote for the best placed ABCON without realising they've been CONned into voting Tory. Stuff I've mentioned before so I'll spare people any nausea and say toodle pip for now. PS Also as covered ad nauseam then if CON's "wets" want to give RUK a raison d'être then that will obviously have a huge impact on CON seats in GE'24. I did 'like' some of their economic policy suggestions but polling clearly shows CON need to fix the immigration issue BEFORE GE'24 and if they don't then RUK will very happily take those 'protest' votes and CON might well end up <100 seats.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 5,913
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 6, 2023 18:22:49 GMT
When Rwanda lectures us on the importance of keeping to International law you realise how far we have fallen
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,605
|
Post by Danny on Dec 6, 2023 18:23:53 GMT
This is the Key provision for lawyers: 2 Safety of the Republic of Rwanda (1) Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country. (2) A decision-maker means— (a) the Secretary of State or an immigration officer when making a decision relating to the removal of a person to the Republic of Rwanda under any provision of, or made under, the Immigration Acts; (b) a court or tribunal when considering a decision of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer mentioned in paragraph (a). (3) As a result of subsection (1), a court or tribunal must not consider a review of, or an appeal against, a decision of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer relating to the removal of a person to the Republic of Rwanda to the 2 Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill extent that the review or appeal is brought on the grounds that the Republic of Rwanda is not a safe country. I dont know if they missed anything whereby someone could still appeal within the UK, but surely the bottom line is this simply reverts the position to before the UK passed the human rights act. That Uk legislation has no authority over the human rights court, and it will still hear appeals on these grounds. And its judgements are binding, though maybe not enforeceable on the UK government? The HCR has standing in the UK and presumably another injunction issued by it ordering a deportation not to take place, will still be binding on UK officials?
|
|