You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
politecameraactionFree Member
Uhh…
Well, they could appeal to the ECHR, the very thing they are trying to ban...it wouldn't been the first, or even most recent demonstration of such hypocrisy.
Basically what Winston says.
If they win it'll become more obvious we're spending many many millions of pounds to ship only 200 poor people (iirc) a year for processing. Probably less than keeping them in the mythical 5 star hotels they're all living up in for a year.
Maybe just spend the money, you know, on efficiently processing the asylum claims here so they can either be released into the system to earn money/taxes/contribute to society, or repatriated if they are rejected and maybe we wouldn't have 200,000 awaiting their appeals.
Well, they could appeal to the ECHR
How? The purpose of the ECHR is to "protect people's human rights and basic freedoms", I don't think governments can ask the ECHR to overrule the decisions of their own courts?
If they win it’ll become more obvious we’re spending many many millions of pounds to ship only 200 poor people (iirc) a year for processing. Probably less than keeping them in the mythical 5 star hotels they’re all living up in for a year.
Maybe just spend the money, you know, on efficiently processing the asylum claims here so they can either be released into the system to earn money/taxes/contribute to society, or repatriated if they are rejected and maybe we wouldn’t have 200,000 awaiting their appeals.
Any sane person can see that this is just a political football, or hot potato or call it what you want.
The mere fact the asylum seakers are languishing in rusty flotillas or 5* hotels for months on end is just silly and a massive waste of money.
Process them quickly, and fairly, that would be far cheaper, but it doen't suit certain political agendas..
I am fairly sure that the european court can still rule against the government if the governments laws are incompatible with the ECHR. It has no teeth to enforce the ruling
As I have siad before the real issue withdrawing from the ECHR is that the declaration of human rights is enshrined in the acts that set up both the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and this cannot be amended without permission from those parliaments. So even if the tories withdraw from it it will still apply in Scotland and Wales unless they take the nuclear option of closing both parliaments.
this sets up a huge constitutional issue and people in Scotland and wales would still be able to apply to the european court for protection under the convention
If they win it’ll become more obvious we’re spending many many millions of pounds to ship only 200 poor people (iirc) a year for processing.
Yup. That it seems completely incapable of scaling means its best used as a "we would do something but cant due to those nasty lefty woke judges". Even as a deterrent it would be useless unless migrants see a real risk of being sent there which given the numbers is unlikely.
I am surprised they dont just say their abandonment of net zero etc is part of their strategy since bad weather in the channel is about the only thing currently working for them.
I am fairly sure that the european court can still rule against the government if the governments laws are incompatible with the ECHR.
Of course they can. But governments can't ask the ECHR to overrule their own Supreme Court, AFAIK. Which is what was being suggested.
How? The purpose of the ECHR is to “protect people’s human rights and basic freedoms”, I don’t think governments can ask the ECHR to overrule the decisions of their own courts?
If the current UK gov is anything to go by, rights and basic freedoms of natural brits would outshadow, say people comming in on small boats, parachute, or hot air baloon, or floating in on small bits of wood, regardless of status.
I don't think it would be a strong legal argument, but it's the type of argument I can see the conservatives trying to use if it comes to the crunch, and why they seemingly want to get out of the ECHR.
ONly england not the UK
Where does Jungle Nige fit in to all this? He was all over the Tory conference like a fungal skin infection on jabba the hutts arse. Spot of “humanisation” ont Telly and then lines up with Suella, Liz and Moggy for the (fentanyl withdrawal fever) dream ticket?
It wouldn't surprise me - but I suspect like others who have tried to create a new party overnight it will be doomed to failure.
Right now I wouldn't bet on the tories being 2nd at the next election. Not because I think they'll win, or even that some UKIP-revival party will do well... ...but this should be the lib dems opportunity to fill the vacuum, shame nobody outside the party can even name their leader!
They set this whole thing up to lose in the same way that Boris set everything up to gloriously lose the Brexit referendum.
It’s all about posturing
If by some remote chance they do win tomorrow, then expect a replay of this…
They never expected to be tasked with delivering it, so there was no plan to do so. Bravermans Rwanda ‘plan’ is exactly the same
Christ, we need rid of this gang of grifters! I can’t believe there are people so thick that they can’t see straight through them
‘Lord’ Mogg was, sadly, on the money about this
Nah, Mogg is an attention seeker just like she was. The media like attention seekers and feed them too much oxygen but the majority of the public don't really have Suella's priorities at the top of their agenda. Some will loudly vocalise her views - but voters are not the same as the noise generators on either side of the fence. Mogg will be living in an echo chamber - because what middle of the road british citizen is going to go and talk to him about, unless they are interested in views from vicotiana?
As for this brain dump of a letter,
Someone in our company whats app group just posted it with "this is what happens when you fire someone and haven't told IT quickly enough to stop them sending that "all company email" out"
I do have to say that they _must_ have known she would do that, so why the hell not actually sack her and deny her that opportunity?
He did sack her (a bit too late but she was sacked, that is not a resignation letter). But the thing is everyone has a platform with social media and as a high profile politician that platform is quite significant. I suspect he held off just in case the Palestine Ceasefire March actually turned into widespread chaos and she was "proved right".
What was considered the ‘usual’ way of doing politics - the ‘good chap’ theory - no longer apply, post-Johnson. He did away with all that.
Boris was a Poundshop Trump, gleefully trampling over democratic norms to serve his own interests. But his own interests were justvacuous and vain
No prizes for for guessing who would be the one to pick up the ball and go ‘Full Trump’. Someone with a far more sinister agenda. I get the feeling Cruella is only just warming up. She’s barely even started yet and she’ll happily put the entire UK democracy through the shredder to further her aims. Word like ‘fascist’ get thrown around a lot nowadays, but she’s the real deal. A ten Bob Brownshirt
^^ Agreed, even after a Labour government she could be a huge threat to this country of she still has a hold of the Tory party.
I hope that when the Tories lose she is swallowed up by the infighting. That's a hope rather than a prediction though.
She's a dangerous individual.
Poopscoop
Full MemberYou have to love that Suella thinks that Sunak looking at her letter of demands when she took the job is some sort if binding employment contract. He’s a politician!
"Dear Rishi, I am very disappointed that you, a habitual liar, have broken the deal you made with me, a habitual liar"
I get the feeling Cruella is only just warming up.
They should both be on that celebrity jungle palaver at the same time.
Who would pluck and eat the most maggots from a rotting chicken filet?, who would surive the the final steel cage match?
Isn’t she allegedly a lawyer?
I don't think I would hire her.
Is she a lawyer in the same sense she's Buddhist? as in she might have read a book about it once?
She is a barrister, but rumour has it not a very good one. I’m fairly sure there was a bit of a stink about her being made a QC as she had to be one to be attorney general, rather than on merit?
Maybe just spend the money, you know, on efficiently processing the asylum claims here so they can either be released into the system to earn money/taxes/contribute to society, or repatriated if they are rejected and maybe we wouldn’t have 200,000 awaiting their appeals.
This is what the opposition party should be shouting every single time asylum is mentioned. It may sink in to some people then.
Braverman has also falsified / exaggerated her accomplishments as a lawyer. Multiple complaints to the bar council about her conduct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suella_Braverman#Allegations_of_misconduct
She’s going to weaponise all this shit. She already has. She’s a dead cert as next Tory leader, brought to you by the same old senile racists who delivered you Liz Truss as PM
I suppose/hope the natural wastage will eat into this.
Where does Jungle Nige fit in to all this? He was all over the Tory conference like a fungal skin infection on jabba the hutts arse. Spot of “humanisation” ont Telly and then lines up with Suella, Liz and Moggy for the (fentanyl withdrawal fever) dream ticket?
I do wonder if after the crashing election defeat the new band gets together.
Winning an election on not being the Tory party isn’t the greatest win, I can see a scenario where we end up with with the NuTory party being full on EDL/NF inspired and even worse than we’re we are now.
We laugh at GBeebies and Cruella but I have a nasty feeling we are at the beginning of something not the end.
It wouldn’t surprise me – but I suspect like others who have tried to create a new party overnight it will be doomed to failure.
no need to create a new party just continue rebranding the existing one,parachute Farage into a safe seat or Baron Farage and off we go 🙂
I do wonder if after the crashing election defeat the new band gets together.
There was someone on R4 suggesting that he's going to wait until after the election and then join the Conservative's as a populist 'saviour' of things... Apparently he, Sue Ellen and the Lettuce formerly known as Prime Minister are all really popular within a group of Tory party members....
TBH after the return of the Cameron,bringing back more of the old favourites and some crossovers doesn’t look so far fetched.
Maybe just spend the money, you know, on efficiently processing the asylum claims here so they can either be released into the system to earn money/taxes/contribute to society, or repatriated if they are rejected and maybe we wouldn’t have 200,000 awaiting their appeals.
Not enough media impact with actually just getting on doing the job efficiently.
Oh and solving a ‘usefull’ problem means you have to create a new bogey man to frighten the pensioners now you can’t blame the EU.
you have to create a new bogey man to frighten the pensioners now you can’t blame the EU.
See Esther McVey's appt as minister for common sense and "anti woke". Like "Brussels" it can anything you want at the same time that it obviously means nothing at all, and everyone can create their own interpretation.
We laugh at GBeebies and Cruella but I have a nasty feeling we are at the beginning of something not the end.
The first series of the BBCs "Rise of the Nazis" felt awfully current.
It wouldn’t surprise me – but I suspect like others who have tried to create a new party overnight it will be doomed to failure.
They believe the whole country is wanting a hard / far right party and is just waiting for them to create it. Remember this lot just believe what they think is right and everyone agrees with them but is too scared to say. The "silent majority" and they would also have huge media support.
I think a tory party split, rebranding into an overtly hard right party or creation of a new "real conservatives" is fairly likely. Just remember some of the batshit crazy things they said about brexit
“Alice laughed. 'There's no use trying,' she said. 'One can't believe impossible things.'
I daresay you haven't had much practice,' said the Queen. 'When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
I think a tory party split<br />
no chance. For one it would mean they’d never ever govern again, and if there is one thing you can be assured of, it’s that the Tory party will be desperate to be in power and do and say whatever they think gives them best chance to get there
i truely dispise the likes of braverman, she is a poisonous witch without an ounce of humanity.
Rwanda ruling incoming.......
and hardly any mention (if any) of ECHR. Basis of decision in other laws and acts, not ECHR. So, hopefully, an indirect statement about futility of blaming ECHR.
That's a pretty resounding "get stuffed!" from Lord Reed.
<edited for unintentional content>
That has blown them out of the water. Will upset cruella as it should keep her out of the news for a little while
Live footage from Cruellas house
They should re-instate her so that she can be fired again.
#Omnishambles
How much money has been spunked away on this?
Also, I think that the unit of wasted cash should be the Mone, with 1 Mn being £200,000,000.
If she was assaulted by a misguided right-wing EDL type fascist, who she stoked up to protect the country from wrong'uns, would they get a place in heaven?
It really was a no-win situation for the govt. Ruling for would have been a nightmare to actually enact and this ruling against, especially worded in this fashion is resounding critiscism of their position and a clear indication that money and time has been wasted. An open goal for the labour party if only they weren't defending an own goal at the other end of the pitch....
Paradoxically, I suspect the only winner here will be Braverman and her followers who can use this as an example of the wokerati plus an ineffectual PM once again thwarting the 'will of the hard working british taxpayer'
But Suella basically wrote a letter that said whatever the outcome, it was Rishis fault. His fault if they lose the appeal, and his fault if they win the appeal and fail to implement the policy.
That seems to me to be a very damning judgement. Not so much as "lose on a technicality" but " are you mad? - it was obvious to anyone with half a brain it was illegal"
How much money has been spunked away on this?
It ranges from the initial £120m payment to Rwanda, to about £300m I think. And to think, that money could have housed a few homeless people.
Or at least been used to pay the salaries of some more staff to process the existing backlog of asylum seekers plus grants to help those who are successful integrate into the country.
Rwanda policy would still be unlawful even if UK were not party to European convention on human rights, says supreme court
So even if Braverman had her " notwithstanding" clauses inserted it would still be illegal and I cannot see how those clauses would actually help at all.
It really is a devastating verdict
Appeals court was a split decision - how, given the SC assessment which was pretty unequivocal?!?
I guess that if Braverman was still Home Secretary she would be arguing for the Netanyahu solution to the problem:
At the heart of the conflict is a judiciary amendment, passed into law by a final vote of 64-0 in Israel's Parliament last week, that limits the unelected Supreme Court's ability to overrule governmental decisions it deems unreasonable.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/01/israels-netanyahu-rules-out-civil-war-after-mass-protests.html
As I have siad before the real issue withdrawing from the ECHR is that the declaration of human rights is enshrined in the acts that set up both the Scottish and Welsh parliaments and this cannot be amended without permission from those parliaments. So even if the tories withdraw from it it will still apply in Scotland and Wales unless they take the nuclear option of closing both parliaments.
this sets up a huge constitutional issue and people in Scotland and wales would still be able to apply to the european court for protection under the convention
I'm afraid not a single sentence of this is correct. Sections 28 and 100 of the Scotland Act 1998 are relevant.
Original appeal was split 1 for, 2 against
Lord Chief Justice (at the time, since retired) thought the Rwandan govt were jolly good fellows and would abide by international law etc etc
"However, the lord chief justice reached the opposite conclusion. Agreeing with the High Court’s decision, Burnett said he believed the procedures in place under the Rwanda agreement and assurances given by Rwanda’s government were sufficient that there was no real risk of asylum seekers being returned to their home countries where they faced persecution or inhuman treatment.
Burnett said the chances of asylum seekers being returned to their countries of origin were low because Rwanda had no agreement with those countries. ‘Extensive monitoring arrangements of those sent to Rwanda and their asylum applications provided lawful protection. Arrangements put in place provide sufficient safeguards’."
If she was assaulted by a misguided right-wing EDL type fascist, who she stoked up to protect the country from wrong’uns, would they get a place in heaven?
Karma is a bitch.
Can you explain PCA? Genuine question. Ill have a look at the act but the two principles are correct IIRC - the ECHR is incorporated in the act and the act can only be altered with the consent of Holyrood.
Edit - I assume you mean this: "This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland" which has no effect because the ECHR is incorporated in the act. Westminster canmake any law they want but they cannot remove the ECHR from the act. Withdrawing from the ECHR does not change this
Edit again - nothing in section100 alters this either
Im willing to be educated on this but I would like to see your reasoning
In fact on further reading Westminster does not even have the power to dissolve holyrood easily. It would take primary ;legislation and a supreme court battle
F163APermanence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government
(1)The Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements.
(2)The purpose of this section is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
(3)In view of that commitment it is declared that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Scotland voting in a referendum.]
Being a grotesque incompetent failure is also a lifestyle choice it seems.
To be fair, Braverman being binned before this makes sense now, Cleverly is against any discussion on leaving the ECHR, same with Cameron, Sunak again isn't a right wing loon, so expect a lot of Braverman/Lord Snooty/etc coming out aghast at this courts decision, but i believe Cleverly is already talking about 'other options' over Rwanda, so killing off this whole tragic episode!
That's my hope anyway, the last few years has been unbelievable with Johnson/Truss and the right wing mentalists being empowered, it's really felt that an entire nation has been run by a dozen or so people.
PCA
<br /><br />In Scotland, civil and political rights are protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 and provisions in the Scotland Act 1998. These rights come from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
https://www.gov.scot/policies/human-rights/
Lee Anderson says ministers should go ahead and “put planes in the air” to Rwanda anyway.
When I asked if he was suggesting ignoring the Supreme Court ruling, the Tory deputy chairman said govt should “ignore the laws and send them straight back”.
WTF? Really? That would be contempt of court surely and no chance the airlines would do something that illegal would they?
I'm gonna have to install Tor, or perhaps a burner windows vm purely to read more DM comments. Their readers appear to be apoplectic. Apparently we should leave the "EHRC" immediately 🤣
Sunak again isn’t a right wing loon
He is, don't let the better presentation and sharp tailoring fool you.
The tories are pivoting know in a desperate attempt to not get wiped out in an election, they know they have pushed the lunacy beyond what the majority of voters feel is acceptable so are trying to read the room, instead of leading the room in vitriolic attacks.
Karma is a bitch
It's pronounced "Braverman" 😉
WTF? Really? That would be contempt of court surely and no chance the airlines would do something that illegal would they?
Presumably 30 Pee Lee's solution for winning the next general election is to simply ignore the result.
It is astonishing to think that not long ago this geezer was in the Labour Party, and only left because he didn't like Jeremy Corbyn.
I’m gonna have to install Tor, or perhaps a burner windows vm purely to read more DM comments.
Vpn and private browsing should do it. You might feel the need to disinfect your phone though
the ECHR is incorporated in the act and the act can only be altered with the consent of Holyrood.
TJ - typed a whole beautiful erudite amusing insightful response (trust me!) and lost it due to 500 error. Short version: Parliament (Westminster) is sovereign. It can amend or repeal any of its own Acts any time it likes, including Human Rights Act and Scotland Act. Scotland Act doesn't incorporate ECHR into law - it merely limits powers of Scottish Parliament and Government. It can also withdraw the UK from ECHR any time it wants.
But it's not going to do any of these things anyway. Mind you, that's what I said about Brexit...
I do laugh that the minister responsible for producing the law and getting it on to the statue book is now blaming the court for her own inability to get legislation though that does what she wanted.
I do laugh that the minister responsible for producing the law and getting it on to the statue book is now blaming the court for her own inability to get legislation though that does what she wanted.
Trust me, that happens way nore often than you'd think.
couple of things wrong with that PCA - the ECHR is incorporated in the Scotland act and the act itself states that the Scottish parliament cannot be dissolved by Westminster ( see quote above)
Primacy of Westminster does stand
But yes - I have read further during this and its not as clear cut as I thought. Ultimatly it would be up to the courts to decide if Westminster does want to remove the ECHR from the various devolved parliaments
I reckon the best thing about the Supreme Court's ruling is that today was supposed to be the start of a campaign, led by Braverman, to leave the ECHR.
Today's ruling has made that completely irrelevant. The crusade that Braverman was hoping to lead, and all the headlines that would have gone with it, won't happen now.
If Braverman is unhappy with the Supreme Court's ruling she will now have to campaign to withdraw the UK from the United Nations.
They don’t want to solve the problem, they want to keep it at the front of the news. It’s now they motivate their base.
Sunak will present some legislation that he claims will work, but it will take a year to fail. Which is all he wants. “Vote Tory to stop the boats…next time”
The voters they are after are the willing dupes who will fall for this trick time after time, like Charlie Brown and the football.
TJ - keep losing bloody responses on my phone. Probably my fault.
HRA gives effect to ECHR in UK law. References to ECHR in Scotland Act are contingent on HRA existence (read defs in Scotland Act) and only limit ability of devolved bodies to legislate inconsistently with ECHR. If no HRA, Scotland Act provisions would have no effect - and in practice, if HRA were repealed, a consequential amendment would delete those refs to HRA in Scotland Act anyway.
Clause on permanence of Scottish Parliament can simply be repealed or amended by subsequent Act of UK Parliament. UK Parliament is sovereign and can't bind itself.
They don’t want to solve the problem, they want to keep it at the front of the news. It’s now they motivate their base
Very much this. It’s just non-virtue signalling to elderly Home Counties racists
I would imagine attempting to change the law when it involves tearing up international treaty obligations, just because you don’t like it, would be opening up a right old can of worms
Given their epic incompetence and obvious failure to even understand what the law is, it’d actually be quite funny to watch them attempt it. It’d be laugh-a-minute watching them tie themselves in knots, with the law of unintended consequences taking centre stage.
Rather than stop digging, they seem to have handed Jimmy Dimly (as John Crace refers to him) a bigger shovel 😂
TJ – keep losing bloody responses on my phone. Probably my fault.
Whats that phrase about workmen and tools? 🙂
fair enough points. I do think it would likely end up in the supreme court for adjudication if they did try it.
I reckon the best thing about the Supreme Court’s ruling is that today was supposed to be the start of a campaign, led by Braverman, to leave the ECHR.
Today’s ruling has made that completely irrelevant. The crusade that Braverman was hoping to lead, and all the headlines that would have gone with it, won’t happen now.
If Braverman is unhappy with the Supreme Court’s ruling she will now have to campaign to withdraw the UK from the United Nations.
Whether the ECHR withdrawal is at all relevant or possible post-ruling hardly matters. The usual idiots are already filling the airwaves with various hysterical and incoherent calls to change the law/ignore the law completely. Their audience laps that shit up. Most of us know that even if Sunak tried to change the law to allow Rwanda to go ahead, it cannot happen within the time he has left before an electoral annihilation. A year just isn't long enough to force it through and overcome a series of legal challenges. He might not even get it through the Commons.
It's all performative from now on until the election.
A fine piece of magical thinking from Johnson<br /><br />
The government has the power, under Schedule 3 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 2004, to ask parliament to deem Rwanda a safe country. That has not so far been done and it should now be done – immediately.
As if that would make the slightest difference to our obligations under international law. You can call a cat Rover and put it in a kennel but its still a cat
Just mischief making from him saying that he would have got it working using the power of magical thinking
Just mischief making from him saying that he would have got it working using the power of magical thinking
He could try lying to the King to try and get away with it...
Whether the ECHR withdrawal is at all relevant or possible post-ruling hardly matters.
Well it does, because tomorrow's headlines in the Sun, Daily Mail, Express, etc, were supposed be along the lines of "Braverman Calls For The UK To Leave The ECHR".
She has been robbed of her rallying call, they have stolen her thunder. This will not help her.
The usual idiots are already filling the airwaves with various hysterical and incoherent calls.....
I prefer to listen to Capital/70s or R4
Sunak says he will pass emergency law saying Rwanda is safe country, and won't let ECHR block deportation flights<br />Rishi Sunak starts by saying he does not agree with the supreme court decision, but he “accepts it and respects it”.
He says the rule of law is fundamental in this country.
The government will agree a new treaty with Rwanda, he says.
But he says he will introduce emergency legislation. This will assert that Rwanda is safe, he says.
(This is the Boris Johnson plan – see 4.07pm.)
And Sunak goes further. He says, once this legislation is passed, he will not let the European court of human rights stop flights to Rwanda.
More magical thinking. this will not survive its first contact with reality I am sure