Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Now What?
https:/
What of the million pounds given to Rwanda ,do we get that back?
What of the million pounds given to Rwanda ,do we get that back?
Answers
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...
12:56 Thu 29th Jun 2023
// ... by doing it ourselves we have the ability to phrase things, and ensure things are interpreted, correctly, not instead ensure courts can claim it says we can't do what clearly we should have every right to do. //
It's a fool's errand to write the law so unambiguously that there's no need for the Courts to interpret it. But, setting that aside, it might be worth OG clarifying what he means by "what clearly we should have every right to do" in the context of this case.
The nature of the specific case, as clearly as I can lay out, follows below. Feel free, OG, to point out any aspects of disagreement, because I want to ensure that we're starting from the same point for what I'd have to say next.
1. Some people attempt to enter the UK by crossing the channel on small boats.
2. These people almost invariably pay large sums of money to people smugglers/human traffickers.
3. The journey so undertaken is quite dangerous.
4. The Government wishes to end, or to significantly reduce, this practice, both because of the criminal aspects and because the number of arrivals by this method is putting a serious strain on the asylum system.
5. To this end, it sought to arrange an agreement with Rwanda, whereby some number of those arriving on small boats would be transferred there, for asylum claims to be processed in Rwanda rather than the UK.
6. At this point, I have no interest in discussing the merits, or the potential effectiveness, of such an approach. This is in part because it's not relevant to what follows: a Government is manifestly not prohibited from implementing a policy just because it might not work.
7. However, what *does* matter is whether the policy is properly implemented according to the rule of law.
8. Firstly, this means coming to a mutual agreement with Rwanda, rather than merely sending people there without the express permission of the Rwanda Government.
Hopefully, these first eight points are common ground. I expect we might start to diverge on the following, so I'll end here for now so that we can check that we're in agreement so far.
It's a fool's errand to write the law so unambiguously that there's no need for the Courts to interpret it. But, setting that aside, it might be worth OG clarifying what he means by "what clearly we should have every right to do" in the context of this case.
The nature of the specific case, as clearly as I can lay out, follows below. Feel free, OG, to point out any aspects of disagreement, because I want to ensure that we're starting from the same point for what I'd have to say next.
1. Some people attempt to enter the UK by crossing the channel on small boats.
2. These people almost invariably pay large sums of money to people smugglers/human traffickers.
3. The journey so undertaken is quite dangerous.
4. The Government wishes to end, or to significantly reduce, this practice, both because of the criminal aspects and because the number of arrivals by this method is putting a serious strain on the asylum system.
5. To this end, it sought to arrange an agreement with Rwanda, whereby some number of those arriving on small boats would be transferred there, for asylum claims to be processed in Rwanda rather than the UK.
6. At this point, I have no interest in discussing the merits, or the potential effectiveness, of such an approach. This is in part because it's not relevant to what follows: a Government is manifestly not prohibited from implementing a policy just because it might not work.
7. However, what *does* matter is whether the policy is properly implemented according to the rule of law.
8. Firstly, this means coming to a mutual agreement with Rwanda, rather than merely sending people there without the express permission of the Rwanda Government.
Hopefully, these first eight points are common ground. I expect we might start to diverge on the following, so I'll end here for now so that we can check that we're in agreement so far.
Yes, we do, but since I'm trying to establish where we (as in OG and I, although perhaps also others who disagree with this ruling) agree and where we might differ, then I thought I'd start with the obvious. If we already diverged on that point (ie, if it were suggested that the UK Government has the power to send such people anywhere, whether that other country wanted them or not), then there's clearly no point in going further.
apparently it will cost £169,000 to send each asylum seeker to Rwanda.
https:/
You could hire a few nurses for that kind of money - including maybe the asylum seeker, which would be a win-win.
https:/
You could hire a few nurses for that kind of money - including maybe the asylum seeker, which would be a win-win.
"what clearly we should have every right to do", would depend on what government tactics/strategy is. But options should include returning illegals to the safe country from which they came across our border. Although in our situation we may need to convince France we should be able to cross the channel at their side, which is why a handover there is a possibility. Or maybe shove them all on the chunnel trains and let the French deal with the folk they were paid to prevent crossing the Channel in small boats in the first place. It should also include moving folk to safe countries who are willing to take them (without claiming that any nation chosen is unsafe without clear evidence of the accusation). And if they originated from an identified safe country, to return them there.
(FYI I'm less in favour of getting myself into a situation where I feel obliged to keep answering. It can be a hassle. I'm more comfortable with posting my view as and when the situation seems appropriate.)
(FYI I'm less in favour of getting myself into a situation where I feel obliged to keep answering. It can be a hassle. I'm more comfortable with posting my view as and when the situation seems appropriate.)
// FYI I'm less in favour of getting myself into a situation where I feel obliged to keep answering. //
OK, no worries and thanks for answering as you did. I see that your approach would primarily focus on working with France more closely, which feels uncontroversial to me.
But the rest of it, the discussion about "moving folk to safe countries", precisely engages aspects of this case. What is a "safe country"? Against what criteria is this to be tested? And so on.
OK, no worries and thanks for answering as you did. I see that your approach would primarily focus on working with France more closely, which feels uncontroversial to me.
But the rest of it, the discussion about "moving folk to safe countries", precisely engages aspects of this case. What is a "safe country"? Against what criteria is this to be tested? And so on.
I finally finished reading through the full judgment (again, linked below):
https:/
It's a lot. And I won't pretend to have been able to follow all of it. I won't say much about what I thought of the arguments, because in any case they are well above my pay grade. But I would like to make a few points.
1. I really think it's important to stress just how narrow the terms of the Government's defeat are. I know it gets lost in the sense that, say, a 2-1 loss and a 36-0 loss give you the same number of points in a football match, but the Court has really not handed out a thumping rejection of the Government's case.
2. It's not just that one judge ruled in the Government's favour. It's also that there were *multiple* grounds of appeal sought. Depending somewhat on how you count, there are a good dozen or so. Three examples of grounds on which the Government won are:
i. Whether it is lawful to send potential asylum seekers to a safe third country without having heard their case at all (Government says yes; all judges agree).
ii. Whether it is lawful for the Home Secretary to [have attempted to] certify Rwanda as a safe third country in individual cases without having to consult Parliament (Government says yes; all judges agree).
iii. Whether certain aspects of EU law had been retained, which if so would have rendered the agreement unlawful (Government says no; all judges agree).
There are a few more (and for those who are curious, the ones I've identified above correspond to Issues 12,14, and 13). In this sense, then, it's hardly a crushing defeat, and the implication of victory on (i) and (ii) above is that the Courts entirely agree that the Government has a broad licence to at least pursue such policies.
3. It's also worth emphasising what is agreed upon that *wasn't* up for appeal, including:
i. Whether the Courts should be looking at this question at all (all parties agree that yes, they should).
ii. Whether it's important to respect everybody's Article 3 ECHR right to freedom from torture, etc. (yes, it is).
iii. Whether Article 3 is breached by sending people to an unsafe third country (yes, it is).
iv. Whether it was therefore important for the Government to ensure that Rwanda is a "safe third country" (yes, it is).
v. Whether, given Rwanda's recent history and approach to past asylum cases, it was therefore necessary for the Government to obtain particular assurances that they would improve (yes, it was, and that is why the Government did so.)
4. This basically means that the only real source of contention is whether the assurances Rwanda provided as part of this agreement were sufficient, according to a legal test (see https:/
* * * *
It really is quite narrow, in spite of the huge length of the judgment (almost 160 pages and 525 paragraphs). With that in mind, and particularly with the 2-1 split decision in this Court, I confess I would at least not be surprised if the Government were to succeed on appeal to the Supreme Court.
Time alone will tell. But, in spite of some of the rhetoric surrounding this case, it represents the system working.
https:/
It's a lot. And I won't pretend to have been able to follow all of it. I won't say much about what I thought of the arguments, because in any case they are well above my pay grade. But I would like to make a few points.
1. I really think it's important to stress just how narrow the terms of the Government's defeat are. I know it gets lost in the sense that, say, a 2-1 loss and a 36-0 loss give you the same number of points in a football match, but the Court has really not handed out a thumping rejection of the Government's case.
2. It's not just that one judge ruled in the Government's favour. It's also that there were *multiple* grounds of appeal sought. Depending somewhat on how you count, there are a good dozen or so. Three examples of grounds on which the Government won are:
i. Whether it is lawful to send potential asylum seekers to a safe third country without having heard their case at all (Government says yes; all judges agree).
ii. Whether it is lawful for the Home Secretary to [have attempted to] certify Rwanda as a safe third country in individual cases without having to consult Parliament (Government says yes; all judges agree).
iii. Whether certain aspects of EU law had been retained, which if so would have rendered the agreement unlawful (Government says no; all judges agree).
There are a few more (and for those who are curious, the ones I've identified above correspond to Issues 12,14, and 13). In this sense, then, it's hardly a crushing defeat, and the implication of victory on (i) and (ii) above is that the Courts entirely agree that the Government has a broad licence to at least pursue such policies.
3. It's also worth emphasising what is agreed upon that *wasn't* up for appeal, including:
i. Whether the Courts should be looking at this question at all (all parties agree that yes, they should).
ii. Whether it's important to respect everybody's Article 3 ECHR right to freedom from torture, etc. (yes, it is).
iii. Whether Article 3 is breached by sending people to an unsafe third country (yes, it is).
iv. Whether it was therefore important for the Government to ensure that Rwanda is a "safe third country" (yes, it is).
v. Whether, given Rwanda's recent history and approach to past asylum cases, it was therefore necessary for the Government to obtain particular assurances that they would improve (yes, it was, and that is why the Government did so.)
4. This basically means that the only real source of contention is whether the assurances Rwanda provided as part of this agreement were sufficient, according to a legal test (see https:/
* * * *
It really is quite narrow, in spite of the huge length of the judgment (almost 160 pages and 525 paragraphs). With that in mind, and particularly with the 2-1 split decision in this Court, I confess I would at least not be surprised if the Government were to succeed on appeal to the Supreme Court.
Time alone will tell. But, in spite of some of the rhetoric surrounding this case, it represents the system working.
