You must log in or register to comment.
I love that the Government’s first instinct whenever they’re told they can’t do something is to pass a “nuh-uh” bill.
Like a toddler throwing a tantrum. Thank goodness the Lords/media/<what is it that protects the unwritten constitution again?> are able to stop it.
Lol if you think the House of Lords has any power to stop a determined House of Commons
True. They are de facto powerless unless its the last year of the term
Labour only have to wait a few more months and then the first thing they can do with their majority is to to unilaterally reverse this bill if it happens to pass before they come to office.
That’s what they’ll do, right? Right? 🫠
It won’t matter because it’s not going to leave the House Of Lords. It’s an illegal piece of legislation there would be serious questions about what the point of the Lords are, if they actually allowed it to pass.
Parliament know this, all of this is just a performance piece to try and win back some of their disillusioned voters who have gone over to Reform UK
Parliament also refuse to answer questions the Lords’ questions about Article 16.1 of the Rwanda deal (now Article 19 under the latest rewrite):
Article 19: Resettlement of vulnerable refugees
The Parties shall make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Parties’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.
It’s a two-way deal, always has been. Just how many “vulnerable refugees” are the UK accepting in return? It could be 1 for 1, or even more, for all anyone knows.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
MPs and peers from the cross-party joint committee on human rights have delivered a critical analysis of the safety of Rwanda bill, which is progressing at speed through parliament.
The aim of the bill is to counter the judgment of the supreme court last November that found Rwanda was not a safe country to which UK asylum seekers could be forcibly removed.
The report is the latest of many from legal and human rights experts condemning the UK government’s Rwanda plan and raising questions about whether the policy is safe, viable and compliant with national and international law.
“The bill’s near total exclusion of judicial scrutiny seeks to undermine the constitutional role of the domestic courts in holding the executive to account,” it states.
The committee asked whether Rwanda was now a safe country to send asylum seekers to simply because the bill says it was, and the majority of its witnesses concluded that the answer was no.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “We are committed to tackling this major global challenge with bold and innovative solutions, and the Rwanda scheme is doing just that.
The original article contains 605 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
It’s King Canute and the tide all over again.
