Next up, "leaving the ECHR is the only way to stop the boats", which I suspect is why RIshi didn't really bother with a proper plan b.
I do wish they would actually tackle the problem by increasing funding and efficiency for claims processing.
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
35 points (97.3% liked)
United Kingdom
4065 readers
376 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Sunak appears to be still pushing ahead, and has claimed there will be more negotiations with Rwanda to try make the policy work. He has also said:
If it becomes clear that our domestic legal frameworks or international conventions are still frustrating the plans at that point, I am prepared to change our laws and revisit those international relationships.
So it looks the ECHR is also now in Sunak's crosshairs.
May raised a good point that just removing ECHR doesn't actually make Rwanda lega by itself, we would still have to make further changes to do so. However I do not actually think that matters to them as ECHR has always been the goal here, Rwanda never really scaled to be a proper solution to the problem even if it wasn't unethical and was legal. The entire small boats issue has always been a Tory manufactured excuse to drum up outrage.
Who'd have thought this would be unlawful?!!?!?!1!!!
You just love to see it for Cruella.
She's having a bad week. It's sweeter than sweet!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The UK's highest court has ruled the Rwanda asylum policy is unlawful.
The government had said its plan to deport asylum seekers to east Africa and ban them from returning was needed to deter illegal small boat crossings.
But the Supreme Court ruled it is possible the Rwandan government would send refugees back to the country they had fled in the first place.
It said the policy breaches human rights laws by potentially leaving the people sent there open to that risk.
The legal case against the policy hinges on the principle of "non-refoulement" - that a person seeking asylum should not be returned to their country of origin if doing so would put them at risk of harm - which is established under both UK and international human rights law.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal decision, and said there are "substantial grounds" to believe people deported to Rwanda could then be sent to places they would be unsafe by the Rwandan government.
The original article contains 194 words, the summary contains 167 words. Saved 14%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!