He states that it was 18 months ago in Rwanda.
The legislation contains clauses that supersede any other laws. This will prevent individuals from using local laws to contest deportation rulings.
He enumerates various justifications that migrants may attempt to use in order to contest a deportation ruling. All of them have been rejected.
He claims that the only exception to the rule would be if someone could provide convincing proof that they would face genuine danger if they were deported.
Without this condition, Rwanda would not have consented to the plan. If that were the case, the plan would have failed.
He states that this exception is very limited. This means that the likelihood of a challenge being successful will be extremely low.
Chris Heaton-Harris made this point earlier today at 10:40am.
UPDATE: Sunak said:
This legislation prevents any possible justification for preventing flights from departing to Rwanda.
The only, extremely narrow exception will be if you can prove with credible and compelling evidence that you specifically have a real and imminent risk of serious and irreversible harm.
It is necessary for us to acknowledge that as a legal requirement – and if we fail to do so, we would weaken the agreement we recently entered into with Rwanda.
According to Rwandan citizens, proceeding any further will result in the failure of the entire plan.
It is pointless to have a bill without a designated destination for people.
However, I must inform you that we have established an extremely high standard that will be nearly impossible for anyone to reach.
Filters BETA
Osborne and Johnson have a longstanding rivalry dating back to their potential roles as successors to David Cameron as prime minister. Johnson’s leadership of the leave campaign in 2016 ultimately ended Osborne’s political career. They currently co-host the Political Currency podcast with Ed Balls.
In February of 2020, Johnson spent an extended amount of time at Chevening, a government-owned country home, while Chequers was undergoing renovations. In his testimony for the Covid investigation, Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s former chief advisor, stated that Johnson was “on vacation for two weeks” handling his divorce, the announcement of his engagements, and media allegations from an ex-girlfriend. Cummings also mentioned that Johnson had plans to work on his biography of Shakespeare.
Johnson’s supporters have rejected the accusation involving the Shakespeare book, and during the Covid inquiry, Johnson stated that he had some work meetings while at Chevening. However, the ex-PM has not provided a complete explanation of how he utilized that period.
During his podcast, Osborne mentioned:
I believe Johnson faced a financial struggle at the beginning of 2020. This was due to him taking on the role of prime minister, which resulted in a significant decrease in pay. Additionally, he had a large tax payment to make as he had been earning money through speaking engagements during the time between being foreign secretary and prime minister. It is likely that he did not save enough money to pay HMRC in the future.
Due to his heavy workload, he was unable to address the issue of Covid. This is a speculation about the events in February. It was not brought up during the Covid investigation, but it is my personal theory as to why he was absent in February.
In reply, a representative for Johnson stated:
This is complete and clear nonsense and goes against the evidence presented during the inquiry. It demonstrates that Mr Johnson was actively working during this time, including attending in-person meetings at Downing Street, completing paperwork, and participating in discussions related to Covid.
In the Political Currency podcast, co-hosted by Ed Balls and the former Conservative chancellor, it was stated that the events of this week have weakened Rishi Sunak’s assertion of being a source of stability.
Osborne said:
The internal conflicts within the Tory party have reignited. Rishi Sunak asserted that he has taken charge after the disorder caused by both Boris Johnson and Liz Truss… He claims to have brought stability.
His previous claim of stabilizing things is no longer valid. The government is now facing fragmentation due to the immigration issue.
According to Osborne, Robert Jenrick’s resignation yesterday was not solely due to a disagreement over policy. Osborne believes that Jenrick is also strategizing for the future of the Tory party.
According to PA, the verdict has garnered interest from both Conservatives and Common Sense groups. Rishi Sunak’s rise to become Conservative leader saw him surpass his party in popularity among the public. This raised speculation about whether he would elevate the party’s image (due to his leadership) or have a reverse effect.
The solution is now evident. According to recent surveys by Ipsos, it appears that being the leader of the Conservative party has significantly decreased Sunak’s likability.
According to Keiran Pedley, who is the director of politics at Ipsos,
At the beginning of the year, the prime minister’s personal approval ratings were higher than those of his party. In January, Rishi Sunak had a net favorability rating of -9 while the Conservative party had a rating of -26. Currently, Mr. Sunak’s rating has dropped to -28 and the Conservative party’s to -33. Throughout the year, there has been rising public concern about living costs, the NHS, and immigration, resulting in Mr. Sunak’s popularity decreasing to nearly the same level as his party’s. He is now faced with the challenge of improving their collective fortunes by 2024.
In 2023, IpsosUK released a new report indicating that Rishi Sunak’s popularity had decreased to nearly the same level as his political party.
Net favourability
Jan 2023
Sunak: -9
Conservatives: -26
November 2023
Sunak: -28
Conservatives: -33
She reported that the temporary business in the House of Commons will continue until Tuesday, December 19, which marks the beginning of the Christmas break.
The bill may pass through the Commons before December 19th; it is not uncommon for the government to arrange last-minute discussions.
However, in the House of Lords, there is no process for the government to push legislation through rapidly despite opposition. Members of the House will likely take several weeks to discuss it. And, as you correctly pointed out, it is improbable that it will be approved without any changes.
The UK government’s proposal to significantly reduce immigration has been described as a “negative and concerning development” for Britain.
During the first minister’s questions, Yousaf addressed a question from SNP MSP Clare Haughey regarding the plan to prevent individuals on care worker visas from bringing their dependents with them.
The UK is experiencing a somber day as they were once a country that embraced immigrants, like my grandfather, who were invited to work in their factories and drive buses due to a shortage in labor at the time.
According to PA Media, Yousaf’s grandfather immigrated from Pakistan to Scotland in the 1960s to work in a sewing machine factory located in Clydebank.
Yousaf contended that both Labour and Conservative governments have contributed to the gradual tightening of immigration regulations over the years. He stated:
Over time, both the Labour and Conservative governments in the UK have gradually taken apart our immigration and asylum procedures.
Regarding immigration, the recent updates indicate that the UK government is expecting migrants to come here and care for their own family members, while also leaving behind their loved ones in their home country.
The UK government has effectively removed any viable legal means for individuals seeking refuge from war or persecution to enter the country.
The actions taken by the UK government in this matter are not just morally unacceptable, but they also display a lack of economic understanding.
The Scottish government, or SNP, highly regards migration. We recognize its significance in our social structure and economy. I want to make it clear that in Scotland, the Scottish government will consistently express our pride in the positive impact that migrants have on our country. We are honored that they have chosen Scotland as their place of residence.
Sir Jonathan Jones, a previous leader of the government’s legal department, has examined the Rwanda bill. He agrees with Rishi Sunak’s assertion that the bill would prevent the majority, though not all, legal challenges to a deportation order to Rwanda. Jones states:
Clause 4 does to a limited extent allow claims on the grounds that Rwanda is not a safe country for a particular person “based on compelling evidence relating specifically to the person’s individual circumstances” (rather than grounds that Rwanda is not a safe country in general). However such claims are excluded if they relate to the risk of someone being subject to refoulement from Rwanda to another country – in other words they must relate to the safety of conditions for the individual in Rwanda itself.
The bill does not have the power to stop people from bringing their claims to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg if they were not successful in enforcing their rights in the courts of their own country. The Strasbourg court is not obligated by the treaty between the UK and Rwanda or by UK laws. They will conduct their own evaluation based on the most recent evidence to determine if there was a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Kevin Schofield from HuffPost UK has written an article about a proposed legislation in Rwanda.
At 11:35am, GB News cited a source who claimed to have extensive understanding of the smuggling rings present in the camps located in northern France. The source shared this information with the channel.
Bringing up Rwanda in conversation now elicits laughter from those in the camps. It has become a source of mocking humor in this community.
The migrants are fully cognizant of the challenges the UK government is facing regarding this policy.
No one has been deterred from coming here despite the threat, as they do not believe they would end up in Rwanda if they successfully reach the UK.
The culture secretary Lucy Frazer has confirmed that the BBC licence fee will increase by £10.50, bringing it to a total of £169.50 per year.
Frazer informed members of parliament that there will be a review of the licence fee, which will explore different options for funding. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport released a statement regarding this matter.
A team of unbiased specialists from the broadcasting industry and other businesses will be revealed shortly to conduct an evaluation of various methods for financing the BBC. The assessment will consider how different models could aid in ensuring the broadcaster’s viability in the face of a changing media environment, growing competition, and shifting viewer habits, while also lessening the financial strain on those who pay for a TV licence.
The review will examine different matters outlined in its scope, such as the possibility of the BBC offering more services through commercial means and what those services may entail. It will also look into how the BBC could shift to a new funding model.
The individuals in charge of the review have not yet been disclosed.
On that specific occasion, his goal was to gain the support of Tory Members of Parliament by offering a promise of “emergency legislation” (despite the fact that the proposed bill was not exactly what they desired). The bill has now been released, and Sunak made sure to mention that it contains “notwithstanding clauses”, although they are not the extreme “notwithstanding clauses” that were pushed for by right-wing individuals. Sunak intends to exempt certain sections of the Human Rights Act; however, Suella Braverman and her supporters are advocating for clauses that would exempt all or some parts of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Sunak delivered a persuasive speech today, asserting that his bill is sufficient in ensuring that deportation flights to Rwanda will proceed. However, it remains uncertain if his legal justifications are as strong as his rhetoric, as he seemed less confident and more defensive compared to his previous discussion on the matter last month. He expressed confidence in his plan four times, but the repetition seemed to diminish his confidence. The most noteworthy observation from the event was the questioning from typically pro-Conservative sources such as the Daily Mail, the Sun, and GB News, which were all critical or doubtful in nature.
Sunak’s initial statement is provided below, along with the key takeaways from both his statement and the subsequent Q&A session.
I will review the methods that individual undocumented migrants use to remain in a country.
Requesting protection as a refugee – that is currently prohibited.
Violation of our policies against Modern Slavery – restricted.
The notion of Rwanda being unsafe has been blocked.
The likelihood of being transferred to a different nation has been prevented.
We have also blocked any false claims regarding Human Rights, as we have completely disregarded all applicable sections of the Human Rights Act.
We have successfully prevented illegal migrants from finding ways to stay.
Their attempts to remain through a Judicial Review on any of those grounds have been hindered by us.
This legislation prevents any potential hindrances from being used to prohibit flights from departing to Rwanda.
The only exception, which is very limited, would be if you can demonstrate with convincing and powerful evidence … that you are personally facing a genuine and immediate threat of severe and irreversible damage …
I would like to inform you that we have set a very high standard that will be extremely difficult for anyone to achieve.
I refuse to permit a court from another country to stop these flights.
If the Strasbourg court decides to interfere despite our parliament’s objections, I will take the necessary steps to stop flights.
The recently passed law explicitly states that the responsibility of adhering to temporary measures mandated by the European court falls solely on British government ministers, as per today’s legislation.
Disregarding orders from the European Court of Human Rights does not equate to disregarding all rulings from the court.
-
He stated that his position was only slightly different from that of the Tory critics who desire a stricter bill. He also mentioned that if he were to comply with their request for a bill that permits the UK to disregard the ECHR, Rwanda would withdraw its support.
Those who suggest “trying something new” are only slightly different from me, considering all the progress we have made. The difference is minimal.
That inch by the way is the difference between the Rwandans participating in this scheme and not.
During his press briefing, Rishi Sunak was questioned about whether No 10 would consider the upcoming vote on the Rwanda bill as a vote of confidence. His response was not completely definitive, but No 10 has since clarified that he answered in the negative.
Considering the second reading vote to be a vote of confidence would result in any Conservative MP who voted against or chose not to vote losing their party’s support and potentially being prohibited from running in the following election.
This could appear to be a favorable choice for the Prime Minister’s office, however labeling a branch as a vote of confidence can have negative consequences as it is seen as a drastic action and a sign of desperation by Members of Parliament. The Prime Minister’s threat to make a vote on fracking a confidence matter ultimately led to the resignation of Liz Truss as PM the following day.
This message is from Paul Brand of ITV.
When asked if they believe the conservative party members are ready to pressure Rishi Sunak to the point of crisis, a member of Parliament responded, “Indeed. They are irrational.”
Source: theguardian.com
