The Conservatives are now speaking and they begin by expressing their support for the objectives of the bill.
However, he is concerned about the possibility of individuals challenging their deportation.
He states that he currently does not support the UK’s departure from the European convention on human rights.
If the European Court of Human Rights continues to prohibit deportations, the UK may initiate a “discussion” that could potentially result in their departure.
He believes that the supreme court’s decision to involve itself in foreign policy and make condescending judgments about the Rwandan system was incorrect.
The individual states they are unable to back the bill this evening and had previously anticipated the government would withdraw it.
According to the ERG report, changes to the bill are necessary. However, some of the proposed changes may fall outside the bill’s scope, making them ineligible for a vote.
At 3:24 pm, he expressed his desire for the minister, Michael Tomlinson, to confirm during his closing speech tonight that the government is willing to consider amendments.
There are many flaws in the current bill that will render it useless and ineffective.
He claims that many Members of Parliament will be paying close attention to Tomlinson’s speech. He believes they will be interested in hearing a “shift in tone.”
He mentioned the time (12:27pm), but he did not state it outright.
Earlier, Sir Robert Buckland addressed the dilemma in his speech. The proposed amendment, which could secure Jenrick’s vote, would result in losing Buckland’s support. (Refer to the 3:12pm update.)
She is taken aback by the discussion of the Rwanda plan and does not agree with the remarks being made about the nation.
She claims that the agreement has set a higher standard for how asylum seekers are treated.
According to her, 130,000 refugees have already been relocated.
She mentions having dealt with orders from the European Court of Human Rights. Specifically, she recalls how an injunction from the ECtHR prevented a flight to Rwanda during her time as home secretary. She is curious about the government’s plan for handling similar situations in the future.
According to him, it is the responsibility of conservatives to maintain equilibrium in accordance with the Constitution.
UPDATE: Buckland said:
The concept of comity is crucial and should not be disregarded. What I am trying to convey is the importance of mutual respect among the various branches of the constitution. This institution holds a position of authority, granted by the people, and it is our duty to exercise that power responsibly…
I am the initial individual to declare leadership in this location. However, I refuse to support legislation that essentially encourages the courts to intervene if you are strong enough. This is not the responsible approach that we, as Conservatives, should adopt.
If the proposed changes to this bill exceed the boundary, I cannot back it and will not do so.
He can no longer stand by the principle of comity. He believes the government should acknowledge the significance of checks and balances.
He asserts that, through “significant effort,” government officials have managed to stay within the boundaries. However, he cautions against giving in to the demands of members of Parliament who are pushing for more extensive measures.
UPDATE: Neill said:
I have been hesitant, but I will ultimately support this bill tonight. However, my hesitation is genuine because I believe it pushes the boundaries of what is constitutionally permissible.
I would withdraw my support if any of the existing safeguards were to be eliminated, as it would cross a line into being unacceptable and, in my opinion, not in line with conservative values.
According to Kitty Donaldson of Bloomberg, several members of the Conservative party believe that around 20 to 30 MPs will defy the party’s stance tonight. A Conservative MP can rebel by either voting against the party or choosing not to vote at all.
Three Conservative rebels have expressed their belief in private that Rishi Sunak will win the vote tonight, despite being on the verge of losing.
– One puts number of rebels at 20
One person forecasts 25, but only 10 are actually voting against.
The third option proposes a range of 20 to 30, with the majority choosing to abstain.
– Next skirmish in Jan
During his appearance on the BBC’s Sunday show with Laura Kuenssberg over the weekend, Robert Jenrick was asked if he planned to vote for the bill. He responded by saying, “No, I will not be backing this bill. However, I do believe it can be amended.”
In his speech this afternoon Jenrick sounded more positive about the bill. He said:
This legislation is not terrible, but it could be improved. I am hoping for its success.
The evaluation of this policy is not based on whether it is the most powerful bill we have passed, nor on whether it is a satisfactory compromise. Rather, the main question is: Will it be effective?
The only thing the public is concerned about is stopping the boats. They are not concerned with Rwanda as a concept, but rather with preventing the arrival of boats. Our purpose here is to fulfill that for them.
I will always prioritize the interests of my constituents and essential national concerns, such as national security and border security, over disputed ideas of international law.
We have the potential to greatly improve this bill, let’s strive for a better version and ensure its effectiveness.
There was speculation on social media that he may vote in favor of the bill, but Emilio Casalicchio has confirmed that Jenrick will not be voting for it.
Jenrick is anticipated to refrain from voting, similar to other Conservative Members of Parliament who have concerns about the proposed legislation.
Source: theguardian.com
