Immigration Watch International (2): UK to ignore European judges on small boat deportations as Rishi Sunak caves to right-wing Tory rebels

Monday, April 24, 2023

UK to ignore European judges on small boat deportations as Rishi Sunak caves to right-wing Tory rebels

Rishi Sunak has caved in to pressure from right-wing Tory rebels and agreed to toughen his controversial small boats bill by allowing ministers to ignore the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Tory rebels say they have reached a deal with the government to amend the Illegal Migration Bill – aimed at removing people who arrive in the UK on small boats – after threatening to revolt over the legislation.

The government has reportedly agreed to give the home secretary Suella Braverman powers to disregard injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights – so-called rule 39 orders – in some instances.

Sources indicated a second amendment will also be introduced tightening the rules around injunctions, so British judges would have to believe deportation would cause “serious and irreversible harm” in order to block it.

But Lord Thomas, a former top judge and cross-bench peer, has warned that any move to ignore ECHR deportation orders would undermine the rule of law – and could still be thwarted in the Lords.

The Independent understands that Ms Braverman was central in landing a compromise deal during “grow-up discussions” with the Tory right to stop fresh rebel amendments going in before a Friday deadline.

The right-wing rebels are understood to be pushing the government to go further – keen to add something to the bill that would enforce medical checks to try to verify migrants’ stated ages.

MP Danny Kruger, leading the push to ignore European court injunctions, told the i the group were “grateful to the home secretary and prime minister for their work to secure ... most of the changes we asked for”.

The right-winger said the British public were “fed up with London lawyers and Strasbourg judges”, adding that he was “hopeful that the government will be able to deliver the prompt removals to Rwanda and other safe countries”.

The small boats bill has been at the centre of controversy, with critics warning the proposed legislation leaves the UK foul of its international obligations and opposition parties dismissing it as unworkable.

The apparent compromise comes after Mr Sunak failed to guarantee he could achieve his promise to “stop the boats” by the next election and said it “won’t happen overnight”.

However, Mr Sunak has been told that it would be “symbolic of a breach of the rule of law” to ignore human rights injunctions – and warned that the latest changes could lead to the bill being defeated in the Lords.

Lord Thomas – a former Lord Chief Justice – told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I think it is a very serious step for the government to be contemplating putting into force.”

Defending the principle of the ECHR, which oversees the European Convention of Human Rights, Lord Thomas said that ignoring the court would “set an extraordinarily bad example”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/small-boats-rishi-sunak-braverman-tories-b2323270.html

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Monday, April 24, 2023

UK to ignore European judges on small boat deportations as Rishi Sunak caves to right-wing Tory rebels

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors