The Supreme Court is a joke. Time for it to go, frankly. It was always going to find against the Rwanda deal.
The Prime Minister said he will end the “merry-go-round” of legal challenges with a law to deem Rwanda a safe country.
It comes after his pledge to stop small boats was dealt a major setback today after the UK’s highest court earlier rejected the Government’s appeal over its scheme to send Channel migrants on a one-way ticket to the east African nation.
Speaking at a Downing Street press conference this evening, Mr Sunak said: “I do not agree with this decision but I respect it and accept it. The rule of law is fundamental to our democracy.
“We have prepared for all outcomes of this case. And so we have been working on a new international treaty with Rwanda.
The logic behind the arrangement was right. If people cross the Channel and are immediately sent packing, it kicks the floor from under the smugglers’ business model. It is by far the best way of dealing with it. Along with a promise that any such people are immediately denied asylum and never allowed back. We have a legal system for entry. Use it or lose the right of entry. It really is that simple. The idea that this in some way breached human rights is absurd. These people are not refugees. They have no automatic right to come here. Denying them entry is fine. We owe them nothing. And if they end up on our streets chanting antisemitic slogans in support of Hamas, even less.
If the Supreme Court wants to play politics, then changing the law makes sense – as does abolishing this abhorrent court. As does pulling out of the ECHR.
We have a problem that needs fixing. Tine to fix it and mean business.
Now… Will the weak, ineffective little man actually follow through?
Will the weak, ineffective little man actually follow through. Yes, of course he will, but only in his trousers.
There is zero chance of the wet Tory party actually doing something about illegal immigration.
Even if they do something about illegal immigration, any laws they pass will be reversed after loony Labour get in after next year’s election.
Another of the son of Satan, B liar’s, progressive legislation. First removed the death penalty for treason then remove the power of the Law Lords. The Supreme Court still following his orders. If the idiot Starmer gets to power we can expect B liar to be recalled.
Nothing is going to happen; this has always been, and will continue to be, a classic govt delay tactic; using the civil service and courts system to repeatedly kick the can down the road.
We have seen through various draconian pieces of covid legislation that if the govt actually wants to make something happen, they will find a way pretty sharpish – and the current invasion is of far greater threat to this country then an outbreak of the sniffles ever was.
Exactly. If they wanted to act they could. The plan is designed to fail. Suella has told us he refused to put the ‘Nothwithstanding…’ clauses in ther relevant Bill. He planned to be able to say ‘Look, we tried but the Supreme Court prevented it.’
“The rule of law is fundamental to our democracy.”
Then why isn’t the law being applied to illegal immigrants then? Why is the law more generally only imposed on people that the government don’t like? This is why you don’t trust politicians, their words and their actions are always at odds with one another.
I always reverse the order of cause and effect in a political speech to see if it throws up any interesting thoughts… so:
“Democracy is fundamental to the rule of law”
Actually makes more sense (but not to a politician) because without democracy (flawed though it is) all you have is a police state imposing its authority on the populace.
Only on certain sections of the populace….
The Rwanda deal was always bollocks, its a swappage deal that was never going to work but somehow this look a squirrel diversion has gained a life of its own, in the meantime terns of thousands more fighting age unchecked males arrived, wouldn’t surprise me if somewhere in the small print even though exports are declared illegal we’ll still have to accept who would have been swapped.
Illegals on boats have always been easy to stop if anyone in charge had a set of testicles, instead of the border farce and lifeboats (who’ll never see another penny from me) operating as water taxis what’s left of the Navy should be busy denying passage and taking them back tout de suite.
Our problem which only seems to have been noticed since Braverman was sacked is so called Legal immigration, i can still rememeber the promises by Cameron’s/May’s/Johnson’s lying govts to cut immigration to the tens of thousands.
And another bus went past
The weak little shite has his hands tied behind his back. Which is the direct consequence of outsourcing our immigration laws to international bodies like the ECHR and UNHCR, which made compelling arguments to the Court. Until we revoke our membership of, and treaties with, such organisations there is little or nothing our government can do. So I don’t actually blame the Court. It was merely correctly interpreting British Law.
The real question is whether Sunk has the balls to revoke the Acts of Parliament, or the sections of them, that allow Johnny Foreiger to tell us what we can or cannot do. Somehow, I doubt it.
An immigration crisis, yes? OK well if it is a crisis the government should use its emergency powers to requisition the houses of the judges to accommodate illegals.
So is Mr. Sunak trying to tell us that the United Kingdom didn’t live under the rule of law before the 1st of October 2009?
The rules in this country used to be that a) Parliament could pass any damned law it pleases, and b) they were all, without exception, open to amendment or repeal by any subsequent Parliament. Therefore if we, the people, didn’t like one of them then we, the people, could vote a Parliament into power which would change it. This arrangement was far from perfect (especially once Parliament started enacting new laws like they were going out of style), but – yes, even with the Lords as a revising chamber – it seems a damned sight more “democratic” than having a bunch of judges striking stuff down ex post facto.
It was obvious from the moment That Nice Mr. Blair appeared on the scene that we were due for a dose of silliness in our politics (and there’s really no other word for it; devastating, catastrophic silliness, but silliness nonetheless). It’s long past time we had some grown-ups in power injecting sense back into our constitution.
I don’t see very many knocking about the place, though.
The Rwanda ‘deal’ was always going to be a failure.
To think that politicians could manage to collect all the illegals, bunch them up on an Airbus, and fly them over to a foreign country was just unbelievably ridiculous!
Why the stupid bloke in No 10 couldn’t just stop the RNLI from helping these people to come here, is a mystery too, but there again, when you get weak politicians ‘in charge’ here, our British values go out of the window.
Sod the lot of them.
Sunak is pretending to be annoyed about this ruling to appease his party but we all know he doesn’t give a toss about stopping illegal scum coming here.