|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 19, 2023 3:14:04 GMT
Lets not be silly, law penned in the shadow of WW2 when there were millions of displaced people in Europe is quite clearly not fit for purpose today. It was fit enough to keep the Rwanda plane on the airport tarmac last time there was a conflict between domestic and international law. It has become a good deal fitter following the Supreme Court's finding that Rwanda is unsafe. Don't worry, though. Little Rishi will undoubtedly do what Johnson didn't dare do, and face down the international courts. Nothing to worry about, Red. One moment...
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 19, 2023 3:22:35 GMT
Lets not be silly, law penned in the shadow of WW2 when there were millions of displaced people in Europe is quite clearly not fit for purpose today. It was fit enough to keep the Rwanda plane on the airport tarmac last time there was a conflict between domestic and international law. It has become a good deal fitter following the Supreme Court's finding that Rwanda is unsafe. Don't worry, though. Little Rishi will undoubtedly do what Johnson didn't dare do, and face down the international courts. Nothing to worry about, Red. No it wasn't. The only reason that plane didn't take off is because we are governed by weak centrist politicians who are frightened of their own shadows. If we want to regain control we must withdraw from the ECHR and ignore rulings from the ECtHR. You will of course disagree because you're pro EU, not pro UK. To be expected.
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Dec 19, 2023 3:29:37 GMT
It was fit enough to keep the Rwanda plane on the airport tarmac last time there was a conflict between domestic and international law. It has become a good deal fitter following the Supreme Court's finding that Rwanda is unsafe. Don't worry, though. Little Rishi will undoubtedly do what Johnson didn't dare do, and face down the international courts. Nothing to worry about, Red. One moment... Ran out of ice, what a cock up on the logistics front. Had to nip back to the dwelling for resupply. It was touch and go I can tell you. I will of course be speaking to the TQ later and she had better have a good excuse. [Happy in the knowledge the TQ will never see this]
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 19, 2023 10:36:29 GMT
It was fit enough to keep the Rwanda plane on the airport tarmac last time there was a conflict between domestic and international law. It has become a good deal fitter following the Supreme Court's finding that Rwanda is unsafe. Don't worry, though. Little Rishi will undoubtedly do what Johnson didn't dare do, and face down the international courts. Nothing to worry about, Red. No it wasn't. The only reason that plane didn't take off is because we are governed by weak centrist politicians who are frightened of their own shadows. If we want to regain control we must withdraw from the ECHR and ignore rulings from the ECtHR. You will of course disagree because you're pro EU, not pro UK. To be expected. I'm sure leaving the ECHR is right at the top of Starmer's agenda.
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Dec 19, 2023 12:00:39 GMT
No it wasn't. The only reason that plane didn't take off is because we are governed by weak centrist politicians who are frightened of their own shadows. If we want to regain control we must withdraw from the ECHR and ignore rulings from the ECtHR. You will of course disagree because you're pro EU, not pro UK. To be expected. I'm sure leaving the ECHR is right at the top of Starmer's agenda. Maybe not but if you think this is just rabid racists ranting you need to think again,people across Europe are unhappy and the asylum laws need changing,if they don’t we ain’t seen nothing yet. Why do you think societies once so liberal in Scandinavia like Sweden and Denmark are seeing attitudes hardening,do you think they’ve all of a sudden gone right wing racists? No it’s because they feel overwhelmed see lawlessness and behaviour on a scale never seen before and a change being forced on them they don’t want.
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Dec 19, 2023 12:03:06 GMT
The British government insists it has ‘robust plans’ to keep its Rwanda asylum policy afloat amid reports commercial airlines have shunned contracts for the scheme. According to The Sunday Times, not a single firm has yet signed up to fly migrants to the East African country, for fear that being associated with the Tories’ highly controversial proposals would damage their reputations - linkGiven the anger of people in this country regarding the continued flood of illegals from the EU, I would have thought that reputations would be damaged more by airlines refusing to take them. Actually, given the airlines attitude shouldn't the government consider using the RAF. A couple of hundred illegals on a C17, a couple of fights a week, it wouldn't take long before the message got back to illegals in the EU that a cross channel dingy is a one way ticket to Rwanda. they don’t need to fly Tow the bloody bibby stockholm
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 19, 2023 12:04:02 GMT
I'm sure leaving the ECHR is right at the top of Starmer's agenda. Maybe not but if you think this is just rabid racists ranting you need to think again,people across Europe are unhappy and the asylum laws need changing,if they don’t we ain’t seen nothing yet. Why do you think societies once so liberal in Scandinavia like Sweden and Denmark are seeing attitudes hardening,do you think they’ve all of a sudden gone right wing racists? No it’s because they feel overwhelmed see lawlessness and behaviour on a scale never seen before and a change being forced on them they don’t want. I was merely pointing out that the legal bar has been raised since the last Rwanda attempt, following the SC's ruling that Rwanda is unsafe. It will now be easier than before for 'lefty lawyers' to obtain an injunction. And it wasn't difficult before, obviously. Things happen, though. The Rwandan government might respond to the SC's concerns. In that case, there shouldn't be a problem.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 19, 2023 12:41:24 GMT
I'm not a great fan of the project to start with, but wanted to note that Darling is peddling old news. The whole purpose behind the government's Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which passed its second reading last week, is to answer the SC's concerns and to head any future ECtHR interference ('interim measures') off at the pass.
At this stage it looks like the Bill will pass.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Dec 19, 2023 12:56:38 GMT
I'm not a great fan of the project to start with, but wanted to note that Darling is peddling old news. The whole purpose behind the government's Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which passed its second reading last week, is to answer the SC's concerns and to head any future ECtHR interference ('interim measures') off at the pass. At this stage it looks like the Bill will pass. This Rwanda nonsense started off as a gimmick for the tabloids and has now become a political tool for the Tory Civil War. The merits of the policy have long become subservient to the Party politics. Who knows how the politics will evolve over what is likely to be an extremely unpleasant election year in 2024. My guess is that maybe 300 people will finally get on a plane just before the election at a cost of around £1m per head. The "policy" will not survive the election. The Rwandan Government will not quite believe their luck....
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Dec 19, 2023 13:02:48 GMT
As I noted earlier, I'm not a great fan of the scheme but that doesn't mean it won't happen. I'm not entirely persuaded that an incoming Labour government will scrap it either unless they have some alternative plan they can sell to the electorate.
Like it or not, it's the only concrete measure that any government has taken since the war to deal with the asylum problem.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Dec 19, 2023 14:29:33 GMT
Absolute bloody rubbish, you have obviously read something but you havent read enough. There are loads of links, google 'Blair wanted a supreme court' and follow links from there. Can't you give a synopsis? Tell us how the SC's jurisdiction differs from the old HoL's jurisdiction. They're essentially the same court but with a different name. Former HoL judicial committee delivered judgments by Law Lords from the floor of the the chamber Middlesex Guildhall Court building was very expensively renovated by Labour to house the Supreme Court as part of their constitutional reforms Rebranding the court cost the taxpayer £58m !! www.supremecourt.uk/visiting/renovation.htmlhansard.parliament.uk/commons/2010-03-11/debates/10031141000019/UKSupremeCourt(FinalSet-UpCosts)
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 19, 2023 14:41:15 GMT
Yep, that's about it. A new building and a new name. But the same judges, the same jurisdiction, and the same procedures. Cosmetic changes only.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Dec 19, 2023 14:47:09 GMT
Yep, that's about it. A new building and a new name. But the same judges, the same jurisdiction, and the same procedures. Cosmetic changes only. Unnecessary cosmetic changes don't cost £58m Blair whinged on about it being increased ''transparency'' and other such b*llocks
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Dec 19, 2023 14:49:51 GMT
Yep, that's about it. A new building and a new name. But the same judges, the same jurisdiction, and the same procedures. Cosmetic changes only. Unnecessary cosmetic changes don't cost £58m Blair whinged on about it being increased ''transparency'' and other such b*llocks Well, none of the money appears to have been spent on formulating new procedural rules, bringing in new judges or expanding jurisdiction. The Supreme Court judges no longer sit in the HoL. That, and the cosmetic changes mentioned, are the only changes I'm aware of. If you know of any more, please share.
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Dec 20, 2023 12:21:15 GMT
Yep, that's about it. A new building and a new name. But the same judges, the same jurisdiction, and the same procedures. Cosmetic changes only. The home page … www.supremecourt.uk/about/the-supreme-court.html… makes much of the court which came into existence in 2009 as a positive separation of the court from the government The utter irony and mendacity in that statement given the fact every single stinking one of them paid a wad of loot direct to labour party funds to attend one of the sponsor a plate dinners held by Blair’s pal Derry Irvine, as part of his plan while Lord Chancellor to milk the judges to benefit from appointing them, is breathtaking
|
|