Wednesday 15th November 2023

[refitman]

Morning all.

[gilsey]

Supreme court concludes Rwanda policy unlawful because of risks to asylum seekers being sent there
Reed says, given this evidence, the court of appeal concluded that there were good grounds for thinking asylum seekers going to Rwanda were at risk.

He says the supreme court is unanimously of the view that the court of appeal was right.

[gilsey]

The central issue in the present case is therefore not the good faith of the government of Rwanda at the political level, but its practical ability to fulfil its assurances, at least in the short term, in the light of the present deficiencies of the Rwandan asylum system, the past and continuing practice of refoulement (including in the context of an analogous arrangement with Israel), and the scale of the changes in procedure, understanding and culture which are required.

In agreement with the court of appeal, we consider that the past and the present cannot be effectively ignored or sidelined as the secretary of state suggests.

[gilsey]

Leave the ECHR, you say?

The principle of non-refoulement is therefore given effect not only by the ECHR but also by other international conventions to which the United Kingdom is party. It is a core principle of international law, to which the United Kingdom government has repeatedly committed itself on the international stage, consistently with this country’s reputation for developing and upholding the rule of law.

[frog222]

From the G

"" 11.12 CET

Turning to the evidence, Reed says Rwanda has been criticised for extrajudicial killings. He says the police in the UK have had to warn Rwandan refugees about threats to kill them.

The evidence raises questions about Rwanda’s compliance with its international obligations, he says.

I hadn't heard this before, but really one more piece of evidence in the case against Cruellla and the whole of her foul party.
( Also I can't remember if the StarmerParty has condemned the whole enterprise and promised to reverse it .... ???? The evidence was out there on the Rwandan govt being a rotten lot, Open Source for forensic people .)

[gilsey]

I think Labour were clear for once, they wouldn't implement it.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Yes, this is something they have been consistent on from the outset - including that they would scrap it had it been ruled legal.

[frog222]

Thanks !

[AnatolyKasparov]

Sunak reduced to exhuming Corbyn at today's PMQs - there are few surer signs that he is struggling.

[frog222]

Listening to WATO ...

It wasn't a resignation letter, she was fired FFS !

[refitman]

[Sky'sGoneOut]

Leave the ECHR, you say?

The principle of non-refoulement is therefore given effect not only by the ECHR but also by other international conventions to which the United Kingdom is party. It is a core principle of international law, to which the United Kingdom government has repeatedly committed itself on the international stage, consistently with this country’s reputation for developing and upholding the rule of law.

They're still saying it. To be fair to Cleverly he's tried to explain the court ruling to his hard of thinking colleagues but they refuse to listen.

I never thought I'd say this but thank god Cleverly is there because had Braverman still been in place imagine the shitshow we'd have had to endure today.

[Sky'sGoneOut]

Ok so as far as I understand it this ruling effectively kills the Rwanda policy stone dead. Regardless of any babble about getting a 'new treaty' (there was no treaty in the first place) unless Rwanda completely transforms its asylum and legal systems the court would find against the government no matter what treaty is put in front of it. Even ignoring all that, given how long it will take to go through the courts again we'll have had a GE by then and Labour will scrap the whole sorry business.

I'm still a bit hungover so maybe I've missed something but it looks to me like this is all over bar the shouting.

[frog222]

[Sky'sGoneOut]

Right so now Sunak is saying he'll force through emergency legislation which will allow the UK parliament to unilaterally state that Rwanda is a safe country despite all the evidence to the contrary.

First of all what an absolute joke, and second of all any new attempt to send people to Rwanda will still have to go through the courts, and there's also this to bear in mind in terms of passing that legislation.



Despite unwillingly having to take a question from the BBC it was notable that Sunak only took two more questions from Tory friendly journalists from the Mail and Express and even they didn't seem to be taking a word he was saying seriously.

[refitman]

Talk about needlessly shooting yourself in both feet

[Sky'sGoneOut]

I mean seriously does Sunak really think that a vote in parliament declaring Rwanda safe is going to sway the opinion of judges who have unanimously found it be quite the opposite? His own MPs might be thick enough to fall for this transparent nonsense but it'll be hilarious to see how well it stands up in court. If it ever gets that far. He's now just delaying the inevitable for as long as possible so the Tories will have someone else to blame (courts/lords) when we finally have a GE.

[gilsey]

Sunak just isn't very good at politics.

[frog222]

Just wondering when Cameron will realise he's thrown in his lot with a bunch of complete no-hopers ?

G article early yesterday ,which I can't find, but basically saying this --
"Besides, he was bored. Now he wants another go at statecraft."

[gilsey]

Jess Phillips tho? That'll be a sight for sore eyes.

[frog222]

God "Sent Hitler to Help Jews Reach the Promised Land"

[Sky'sGoneOut]

So now we're getting reactions from the Tory right and even they aren't stupid enough to fall for Sunak's panicked nonsense.

It seems to me his only options remaining are to write off the scheme entirely, find another country to replace Rwanda, or make the UK so shit that the courts can rule that Rwanda is a safer country than the UK.

To be fair, on that last one he does seem to be making some progress.

[Sky'sGoneOut]

Just in case there was any doubt that the Vote Leave mob are grubby little fascists with absolutely no respect for this country or its institutions.

[refitman]

[Sky'sGoneOut]

Here's the list of all the MPs who voted for the SNP ceasefire amendment. I'm happy to say mine was one of them.

https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/commo ... /1666#ayes

[Sky'sGoneOut]

Some surprising names there, Liam Byrne, Stella Creasy, Sarah Champion...a lot of them not the usual suspects as it were.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Some surprising names there, Liam Byrne, Stella Creasy, Sarah Champion...a lot of them not the usual suspects as it were.

Those MPs do have one important thing in common, though.

[Sky'sGoneOut]

Those MPs do have one important thing in common, though.

They have a conscience?

Or are you going to tell me all these Labour MPs who voted for a ceasefire only did so because they've got Muslim constituents?

Because that's the line the far right are pushing.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Its a factor, regardless of what the "far right" are saying,

Nearly all the rebels are either Muslim, have large numbers of Muslims in their seats, or are on the left of the party more generally.

Or are we supposed to believe that JRM's best pal has suddenly and belatedly discovered "conscience"?

Btw quite a few of the resignees will very likely be back on the front bench before too long anyway.

[refitman]

So, they're pandering? Do you think Muslims matter less than other constituents? Bare in mind, these Labour MPs are voting the way the majority of people in this country currently feel.

[refitman]

I can only think that the Labour leadership think Palestinians are worth less than Israelis


Apropos of nothing in particular...

[AnatolyKasparov]

So, they're pandering? Do you think Muslims matter less than other constituents? Bare in mind, these Labour MPs are voting the way the majority of people in this country currently feel.

I'm not making any moral judgement, just saying how it is.

To a certain degree, this is performative by *both* sides.

Of course Starmer *could* have allowed a free vote tonight, but he wants to show that he is a "strong" leader who won't be pushed around.

[Sky'sGoneOut]

Yet my MP is far from being on the left of the party, doesn't have a large number of Muslims in his constituency, and this is the first time I've seen him rebel in all the time I've lived here.

Claiming that Labour MPs voted for a ceasefire, some losing their jobs, in order to appease a minority of their voters, is a depressingly cynical accusation to make if you don't mind me saying. Those 56 MPs come from right across the country, some from affluent white areas, and besides even if an MP has a constituency with a lot of Muslim voters what's wrong with representing their views? It's what MPs are supposed to do.

[Sky'sGoneOut]

Jenrick getting his sorry arse handed to him by Victoria Derbyshire on Newsnight.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Is your MP Alex Sobel, then?

If not on the left of the party (he was Corbyn critical) then he is at least "leftish".

Anyway, there may be a couple of exceptions - but my general point holds. And again, I'm not judging by saying this.

[Sky'sGoneOut]

Is your MP Alex Sobel, then?

Nope.

And even if I were to accept your assertions (which I don't) there's a lot more than a couple of exceptions.