The laws you have now are inconveniencing me so I'm going to make a law that "say i can ignore them"
Yes lets see how this goes as a test case
this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
22 points (100.0% liked)
UK Politics
3073 readers
122 users here now
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, 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. (These things should be publicly discussed)
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.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
isn‘t it even as crazy as that: the laws forbids me to do something because of reality, that‘s why I will make a law that redefines reality?
Remember when the anti Brexit campaigners said this would result in the loss of human rights?
Sunak cannot pass any laws this side of an election. The lords will quash any legislation around this, and there is not enough time to force it through. It is just bluster to appease the muppets in the party, while creating a distraction for other stuff. When a Tory is shouting loudly there is usually something else going on.
In reality, even though this is confirmation that Tories will do anything to redefine reality to meet their needs, there's not much chance of this happening before a GE. It'll take time to draw up, time to go through both Houses - where the Lords are not fans of the whole Rwanda plan anyway - and then it'll get legally challenged, just like this latest iteration of the policy was.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Rishi Sunak is introducing emergency legislation to “confirm” that Rwanda is a safe country for asylum seekers deported from the UK, after the supreme court blocked his plan.
The prime minister said he would bring forward the new laws shortly and would be prepared to defy any judgment from the European court of human rights in Strasbourg if there were further attempts to stop Rwanda flights going ahead.
Addressing a Downing Street press conference, Sunak also said he was working on a new international treaty with Rwanda that would provide “guarantees in law” that people deported from the UK would not be returned to their home countries.
He said people were “frustrated by repeated challenges to attempts to get this done”, and he declined to criticise the Conservative party deputy chair Lee Anderson, who said the UK should ignore the court’s ruling and allow the flights to take off anyway.
Shortly before Sunak spoke, his former home secretary Suella Braverman joined a backlash from rightwing Tory MPs against the court decision, calling for emergency legislation to “block off” international and domestic legal avenues preventing the flights going ahead.
Sunak said he had already made progress in relation to rule 39 orders – the interim injunctions issued by the European court of human rights, one of which blocked the only planned flight to Rwanda.
The original article contains 614 words, the summary contains 223 words. Saved 64%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!