Now What?

[Bobbisox1]

https://news.sky.com/story/government-plan-to-send-some-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda-is-unlawful-court-of-appeal-rules-12911494

What of the million pounds given to Rwanda ,do we get that back?

[Bobbisox1]

Hymie , like you friend, you dodge the question?

[Hymie]

The only thing the government has to do is process the asylum seekers in a timely manner and deport those ineligible to remain – simples.

[Hymie]

I hope that the government are not failing to process the asylum seekers in a timely manner and as a result putting them up in hotels at the tax-payers expense – that would be a grossly incompetent thing to do.

[gulliver1]

Should have stayed in the EU....Maybe.

[retrocop]

//The only thing the government has to do is process the asylum seekers in a timely manner and deport those ineligible to remain – simples.//

It's not so simple though is it. Once established who are 'ineligible to remain' where are they to be deported? Rwanda maybe?

[Gromit]

The amount of money in legal fees and time this has wasted is a scandal.

[Old_Geezer]

And the invasion of illegal immigrants, claiming falsely to be asylum seekers even though they have just crossed the Channel from a safe country, does not allow for quick timely processing: well not unless common sense prevails and they're immediately sent straight back to the safe country they just left.

[Bobbisox1]

You have to laugh at Care4Calaise,yeah them, what about Care4Kent???

[Gromit]

// they can then go into the next election with a campaign to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights //

They can try to do that now, no need to wait for a general election.

The only snag, Parliament would never approve it.

[ClareTG0ld]

It's more or less inevitable that this will go to the Supreme Court, especially when it's a 2-1 majority opinion rather than unanimous.

Still reading the judgment (linked below), and may comment further afterwards on the specifics, but since this is surely not the end of the story of whether the policy is lawful, it's probably better to wait for the end of the legal process before discussing further action.

I will, though, say as a general point that it's almost inevitable that Human Rights are only visibly relevant for the most vulnerable people, ie (in this case) asylum seekers. But the principles still apply in general. And the relevant article in this case, Article 3, states that:

"No-one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment."

How is this objectionable? And how is there any meaning to this basic protection if you can simply circumvent it, by sending somebody to another place where they may (or will) be subjected to torture, inhuman treatment etc., instead?

It's the same protection we all enjoy, and would always wish to enjoy; and, since the only qualifier to human rights is to be human, then naturally every other human should enjoy it as well. All of these are general principles. Or, at least, should be. The key is that the most basic protections apply to everybody. Not just those who the Government likes. Everyone. Without exception. If that makes things occasionally complicated, so be it.

Whether the Court is correct to find this specific policy unlawful by this measure, I don't know. But it's the right measure, and the right question, and even the Government agrees with that (although they are, for political reasons, careful not to draw too much attention to this).

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/AAA-v-SSHD-judgment-290623.pdf

[naomi24]

The government is going to appeal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-66045323

[royfromaus]

Hymie
Oh dear, this is going to upset the racists & bigots.
______________

What upsets me (more hisses me of) is events like this...

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/asylum-seeker-charged-rape-skegness/

Let him in, let him run free, and if he rapes someone, we will then look into his background to see if he is a criminal on the run front another country.

Too late for the raped woman, she will just after cope.

People were sacked from their job to accommodate this alleged rapist. Obviously by sharing my concerns that makes me a R&B


Yours sincerely
Racist and bigot.

[Bobbisox1]

ClareTGold, always a measured and well put answer, worthy of a BA

[Gromit]

// they can then go into the next election with a campaign to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights //

The judgement was that it broke UK Law, not that it broke a European Convention.

[bazwillrun]

"Oh dear, this is going to upset the racists & bigots.'
another troll post by any standard...

care to qualify that crass troll statement or shall we treat you and it with the contempt it deserves ?

[youngmafbog]

Parliament Act to change whatever law is being 'broken'.

Blair liked it so if good enought for labour good enough for the Tories.

The problem we have at the moment is that real asylum seekers are trapped in the vast swathes of illegal economic migrants. It has to stop.

And if it does become the ECHR then leave.

[Untitled]

"The judgement was that it broke UK Law, not that it broke a European Convention."

and the UK law it is found to have broken is the HRA... which is a law that makes the ECHR enforceable by UK courts rather than only by strasbourg....

you are right that they could launch the campaign now but that ignores electoral strategy... the tories have nothing else for the next election and they are looking for a way to repeat their 2019 strategy of effectively re-running the brexit referendum

[Old_Geezer]

"No-one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment."

No one objects to that, and no one has suggested doing so. The issue is about sending illegal immigrants, falsely claiming to be asylum seekers but who have come from a safe country, to another safe country that is willing to have them. A perfectly moral and humane solution to the problem.

[ToraToraTora]

the ECHR is berger all to do with HR anyway. We should exit that and use what we used to have, common sense.