Forum Topic

Supreme Court

The rule of law prevails - again. Remember BJ's proroguing of Parliament?

Alexander MacLeod ● 588d49 Comments

Just to put some numbers out.Labour plan to build 300,000 homes a year. Ok the previous Labour government had a dreadful record on house building but put that aside for now.Germany has over a million Ukrainian refugees.Poland almost a million.Czech Republic almost 360,000.UK 174,099Ireland 91,000You can see by the numbers of refugees just from just one country that Labour are not serious about taking more refugees. It simply doesn't have a housing strategy to meet the demand. It's probably why they never mention numbers.

Ed Robinson ● 582d

Michael,You can cut down on aid by not bombing countries and over throwing governments. Not doing something negative is extremely cheap, green and good for the tax revenues.No one is suggesting world peace, just not to use our taxes for illegal wars and then spend more taxes trying to cover it up. Obviously if parties want wars and do not believe in international law then they should be up front and put it in their manifesto.Yes there are other causes of migration but war is the main one. Have Labour sanctioned more wars during its short terms in office than the Conservatives???

Ed Robinson ● 583d

Agree, Ed. Fix the root cause. Cutting overseas aid certainly doesn't help reduce economic migrants - particularly when they can see the disparity in their living standards and elsewhere in North America and Europe on satellite TV and the Internet - the local cafe and mobile phones will give the access to that. Better application processes for genuine asylum seekers would allow more efficient separation of them from other migrants? (It seeked to work for Ukrainian migrants?) More cooperation with European partners might also help?However, one wonder if it's like achieving World Peace? There's been migration through history for various reasons: war, wealth, famine, drought, etc; and climate change will likely accelerate it in the decades ahead.I think the Rwanda solution is probably like trying to fix a failing IT system by repeatedly changing a few lines of code when a complete design and rewrite is needed. I'm still not convinced about the deterent effect, in my experience a risk/benefit analysis is often based more on perception than rationality unless carried out within a formal methodology, particularly when the risks are really uncertainties.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_perceptionStill, that's my perception, not a formal analysis so I could be wrong, but there's no evidence the government has done a rigorous risk/benefit analysis either - so it's an expensive (fort the taxpayer), traumatic (for the victims of trafficking) experiment if it goes wrong :-(Open borders is unlikely to be workable a solution but a better migration flow control system through borders coupled with reducing economic and social stability differences to make migration less desirable possibly is?

Michael Ixer ● 583d

Airlines get fined just like lorry drivers if they carry people who do not have appropriate visa ect.If the Rwanda deal can deter people so we do not have people including children drowning in the channel then that would be a good thing.Ultimately the best solution would not to create refugees in the first place. Both main parties but especially Labour have a terrible record.You will of course get some Labour apologists that will say Labour will take more, but they never say how many. They certainly will not take hundreds of thousands unless that is they go all Joe Biden and just open the borders!

Ed Robinson ● 583d

According to The Telegraph today - headline included in the front page "Thousands of migrants may get "amnesty""...

Ivonne Holliday ● 584d

A pity you can’t manage to apologise without further insults. Perhaps get your wife to explain!

Jane Carter ● 584d

Sense of humour bypass Jane.Not a personal insult at all just following RCs approach.But if you took it as an insult my apologies.

Andy Pike ● 584d

A lot of them had been waiting to cross the Channel all in camps in France. If there are so many of them, they could have clubbed together to get a dingy, not all of them could have paid a lot of money. A lot was paid for the ones coming across in lorries, who some sadly died. But as we all know very rarely you see women and children with them. Obviously so many come over it's not all broadcast. The thing I don't understand is if they pay to come here by boat. Why don't they come by plane obviously no proof of who they really are. So we don't really know who we are letting in. Terrorists, criminals,etc. So send them to Rwanda ASAP.

Barbara Stevens ● 584d

A prediction based on factual evidence. Kindly desist from this kind of personal insult, Thankyou

Jane Carter ● 584d

One wonders what a factual prediction is? Surely the fact that it's a prediction means it's not a fact.Sorry Jane but surely Ricgard woukd have pointed this out to you

Andy Pike ● 584d

Time will tell, I suppose I'm more cynical than you. Anyway, the new legislation has to get through the Commons and Lords first ... 

Michael Ixer ● 584d

I think that migrants like other people make rational choices. At the moment it is worth paying money to traffickers because there is virtually no chance of being deported once they get here. The idea of the Rwanda scheme is to change those odds and thus reduce the numbers. So far no one has come up with a plausible alternative.

Steven Rose ● 584d

I believe there's research that people don't evaluate statistics rationally. So if someone is prepared to risk their life crossing the channel when there's a risk of losing their life then they're probably not going to worry too much about what may be a small risk of being sent to Rwanda. One wonders if this is just a trial to see if it does have any affect on numbers, and to try and pretend to be tough? And it's easier to penalise the victims of the smuggling operation rather than the criminals running it?It'll be interesting to see if if other countries do anything similar until they've seen the way the UK's system works? Of course, any EU countries are likely to have the same international treaty hurdles to overcome as the UK has.

Michael Ixer ● 584d

Once the flights to Rwanda (or some other country) begin, the message will  spread and the numbers will decrease. This sounds more like wishful thinking than a factual prediction. If desperate migrants know that their chance of being sent to Rwanda is only 1 in 250 are they really going to be put off when they are ready to risk their lives at sea to reach the UK? Anyway what  happens when the 200 is reached?

Jane Carter ● 584d

I am sorry to repeat the same point, but the idea behind the Rwanda scheme is not to send 50 000 migrants each year to Rwanda, which is obviously not feasible, but to deter the migrants from attempting to cross the Channel in the first place. The logic is that people are less likely to pay thousands of pounds to traffickers if they run the risk of immediately being sent to a third country should they make it to Britain. Once the flights to Rwanda (or some other country) begin, the message will  spread and the numbers will decrease. Other countries like Denmark are considering similar schemes.

Steven Rose ● 584d

What I fail to understand is the viability of the Rwanda scheme. There appeared to be over 50,000 illegal immigrants arriving this year in the UK up to June 2023; however, it's been reported that the initial capacity of the Rwanda scheme is 200 (I don't know if that's a maximum, annual, or perhaps monthly figure). Those numbers have been taken from Wikipedia so I'm not sure how accurate they are but taken at face value the scheme doesn't seem to have a chance of succeeding. It rather appears they're facing to the right wing audience. If anyone has better metrics I'm prepared to be corrected but it's interesting that there seems to be no obvious place detailing how it will cope with the numbers.It's worrying that the UK and other EU police forces can't identify and deal with the criminal gangs trafficking people; could it be that - like some cyber crime - it's being encouraged or protected by some nation states to cause unrest in Europe?

Michael Ixer ● 584d

Mr Rose'Yvette Cooper has stated that Labour intends to tackle the backlog of asylum cases and arrest the criminal gangs'. Yvette Cooper is to politics as her husband is to ballroom dancing.But perhaps I am a cynic for we all know that when Labour are in power, this and every other problem the country has will soon disappear.

John Hawkes ● 584d

Mr Rose'I fear that some of the contributors to the Forum are more interested in attacking the government than in solving the problem of illegal migration'.Absolutely true.They believe in an open border policy and I am sure would be happy to relieve taxpayers of the cost of putting up these immigrants in hotels by taking them into their own homes.

John Hawkes ● 584d

Ms Holliday'According to the headline in The Telegraph today, the PM will use emergency law to start the flights to Rwanda.'If she is using emergency LAW then surely what she is doing is legal !How the law was approved is irrelevant.If however she is using this law incorrectly then presumably the judicial system will stop her.

John Hawkes ● 584d

As to your question, Ivonne,  don’t know how poor and distressed migrants manage to amass the funds needed to pay the traffickers.  Perhaps their families contribute. It has been reported that in some cases they sell themselves into slavery in Britain in order to pay off their debt to the traffickers.

Steven Rose ● 585d

I don’t think the  plan to send illegal migrants to Rwanda is inhumane. The UN itself has sponsored a scheme to send migrants trapped in Libya to Rwanda. But it remains to be seen whether the government’s plan will have a deterrent effect, assuming it ever gets off the ground. At least it represents a genuine attempt to reduce the number of people crossing the Channel in small boats. Labour has been very critical of Rishi Sunak on this issue but its own policy seems little more than disingenuous waffle. Yvette Cooper has stated that Labour intends to tackle the backlog of asylum cases and arrest the criminal gangs.  But reducing the backlog will do nothing to stem the flow of migrants and she has not explained how Britain will stop the traffickers when every other European country has failed.

Steven Rose ● 585d

Hello Steven,Firstly, this is going to be a bit of a long reply. I agree with you in some respects but not all.I invite you to read the article in the link below, compiled by the International Organization for Migration in 2017.https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/four_decades_of_cross_mediterranean.pdfYou will see that, in 2015, Greece and Italy bore the brunt of boat people.  The influx was of 1,000,000 people in that year alone with a very low minority going to Malta and Spain.At the time, I remember very clearly that everyone was saying the immigrants should remain in the countries they arrived at.  In a sense, that protected the UK a lot. I also remember Hungary closing its borders to the immigrants coming from Serbia as it did not wish them to walk through the country.I also remember very clearly at the time thinking "what is the best way of destabilizing a continent?" I still think this today.Is Rwanda feasible?  I doubt it.  Its history is not inspiring and the principle of "a gentleman's word is his bond" is not existent there and does not exist here either.  Rwanda is in the Commonwealth, but so is Mozambique - so why choose Rwanda? To believe that you can ship people out to far away places as it happened in the 19th century is really horrific and incomprehensible. But both Priti and Cruella revelled in this (one had a dream?). Yes, other countries are starting to consider this - but there is a Surpreme Court judgement that shipping people to Rwanda is illegal.First of all, separate the economic migrants from those truly seeking refuge.  The problem is that so many cuts have been made to the public sector that there is an enormous vacuum of knowledge and experience - let alone empty desks.I am not convinced about Interpol not being able to identify peoples' traffickers.  I think there is a vast amount of money involved - and people of influence involved too.  But that is my thought.Deporting people to Rwanda is expensive - particularly if a plane takes off taking one person on board only.And yes, there are thousand of jobs in the UK that need filling up.  The sad truth is that the British people do not want to do them.  What happened two summers ago?  British people went fruit picking and lasted two days at the job.As you say, the UK should not refuse asylum to the people fleeing persecution.  Economic migrants are a different kettle of fish.  By the way, could you please let me know how the boat people managed to amass the amount of money demanded by people traffickers and are penniless here? Too many questions are unanswered - and that is the key to all of this.

Ivonne Holliday ● 585d

Exactly, Michael. Im not sure how you would assess whether the sample was representative?

Jane Carter ● 585d

The migrants being interviewed by the BBC in a Calais camp said the threat of being sent to Rwanda wouldn't put them off of trying to get to the UK by boat. I don't know how representative a sample they were.

Michael Ixer ● 585d

That assertion is questionable. What evidence is there that they wouldn’t pay huge sums to traffickers if there is a small possibility of being sent to Rwanda when they are prepared to risk their lives in the small boats?

Jane Carter ● 585d

The purpose of the Rwanda scheme is not to send all the migrants crossing the Channel to Rwanda but to deter them from making the journey in the first place. No one is going to pay a trafficker thousands of pounds if there is a chance they may be sent to Africa. As for job vacancies, these should be filled by British people or by the 600 000 legal immigrants.

Steven Rose ● 585d

I see where you are coming from, Andy, but what other practical solution is there? Even if Rwanda was legalised, it would only take a tiny proportion of irregular migrants arriving here in boats. if people are desperate enough to risk a high probability of drowning at sea, are they really going to be put off by the threat of Rwanda, especially when they know the government’s attempted policy is in tatters?

Jane Carter ● 585d

How many of our children were sent to Australia years ago and treated like sh=t. Also the people who went there in the 60's. Yet we roll out the carpet for everybody. Why not say they can stay if they have qualifications, engineers, electricians etc. Also that they can work and not rely on our Health Service and Benefits. If they want our Health Service they can do like Australia etc. and pay Private.

Barbara Stevens ● 585d

How do you assess them in their own country if they refuse to play the game. They are sailing across the channel because they know if assessed in their own country they would fail the test. What would they do then? obviously get a boat. And so it goes on. Rwanda may not be the ideal solution but I dont see any of the other parties offering a solution to the boats.they just waffle about a backlog ( of course there is they are arriving daily to add to it)

Andy Pike ● 585d

It seems perfectly possible to have a rational discussion on the topic of immigration as evidenced in this forum. However, no amount of discussion is actually going to stop the small boats. Yvonne is right: there has to be a distinction made between irregular migrants and genuine refugees. Surely a sensible approach would be for those migrants wanting to come to the UK to be at least initially assessed in their own countries by British officials and only those with a genuine asylum claim to be sent here by a regular means ie plane, train? It should also, of course, be pointed out, that this country has serious skills shortages and many job vacancies so we do actually need some economic migrants.

Jane Carter ● 585d

I think we should come first, there are so many people being made homeless, why?. If you compare the size of our country to Australia, Australia is massive, the only reason they come here is because they get told they will have large houses for their families. Once they are here then they bring their families. Send them to Rwanda, this hopefully will deter them from all coming here.  They could tell you anything if they have thrown away their passports and identification. Especially after a 40 yr old was put in a school with children making out he was 16. Shame the Government can't do something and stick to it. Otherwise move them into 10 Downing St.

Barbara Stevens ● 586d

Mass immigration is threatening the stability of several European countries. In Italy alone there are over 700 000 irregular migrants, an untenable situation. The combined police forces of Europe have been unable to stop the people traffickers . This is because a) there are huge numbers wishing to move from poorer to richer countries b) there are huge profits to be made and very little risk for the traffickers, who are well out of sight when the migrants arrive c) it is virtually impossible to police sea borders and d) asylum laws are exploited to make the removal of irregular migrants all but impossible, ensuring that the business model of the traffickers remains credible.The only sensible solution is to deter the migrants from making the journey in the first place. The Rwanda scheme is an attempt to achieve this. If the migrants know that they are likely to end up in Rwanda rather than the UK, they will be less likely to hand over thousands of pounds to the traffickers.Unfortunately it is impossible to have a rational discussion of the topic of immigration in this country because people are more interested in attacking the government and  avoiding any personal accusation of cruelty or racism than in  confronting the problem. As a result a number of questionable arguments have been deployed to attack the Rwanda scheme:1) it is expensive - yes it is, but it is far more expensive to house thousands of migrants in seaside hotels2) we should stop the traffickers - yes, but that has proved impossible (see above)3) it is the existing backlog of asylum claims which is the problem - no it isn’t, it is the fact that the backlog is increased each day by further arrivals4) it is inhumane to refuse asylum to those seeking refuge from persecution - the majority of those crossing the Channel are economic migrants and even those who originally fled from persecution are already in a safe country, namely France, but wish to live in the UK 5) there are hundreds of thousands of job vacancies in this country which could be filled by the migrants - it is not morally acceptable that large numbers of British people who are fit to fill these vacancies should remain on benefit nor is it economically viable to build the houses, the roads, the schools, the hospitals to accommodate thousands of immigrants over and above the 600 000 who arrive each year legally.This does not mean that the UK should refuse asylum to those fleeing persecution. The UK has rightly offered asylum to hundreds of thousands of people from Syria, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Hong Kong under various schemes. But the government also has to consider the needs of people already living here.

Steven Rose ● 586d

Stop the people's traffickers and you will not get dinghies crossing the channel.

Ivonne Holliday ● 586d

If they are claiming asylum legally why have they thrown their documents overboard and why not claim legal asylum in the first safe country?The whole of the EU has now realised the scale of this problem with many eg Hungary and Austria closing borders.  The Netherlands and Italy have said they just can’t take any more people coming in illegally.  “Irregular” and not illegal is a term for people tripping over themselves not to offend.  Try getting into India or Australia without proper documentation so please stop the red herring of you must be prejudiced if you are against illegal entrants.

Robert Wheeler ● 586d

The ‘real problem’ is not the backlog in itself, but the fact that more migrants are arriving each day, adding to the backlog. Furthermore, except in the case of Albania, there is no mechanism for removing those migrants whose application for asylum has been denied.

Steven Rose ● 586d

I don’t think there is any doubt that people crossing the Channel in small boats without a visa are illegal migrants.Never let prejudice get in the way of facts. According to the government’s own statistics ‘90% of those who crossed the Channel claimed asylum in the UK, but only 360 (1%) people had received a decision by the end of June 2023. Of those who did receive a decision, 176 (49%) were grants of refugee status or other leave.The real problem is the time taken to process these claims. It’s worth noting that ONS refers to these migrants crossing in small boats as’ irregular’. They are not illegal until they are judged to be so in which case they should be sent back

Jane Carter ● 586d

I don’t think there is any doubt that people crossing the Channel in small boats without a visa are illegal migrants. These crossings are dangerous and they undermine the country’s immigration system. Why would anyone bother to apply in a legal manner to come  to this country if others can simply circumvent the rules? As to the charge that in resurrecting the Rwanda scheme the government thinks it is above the law, what is the evidence for this? If the UK manages to ensure through a treaty that asylum seekers will not be deported from Rwanda, then the scheme will be in compliance with the law.

Steven Rose ● 586d

Solve the problem of immigration?Find the people's traffickers, jail them and it would certainly solve the problem!It would also be of help to define, very clearly, what the government understands illegal immigration means.Afghan nationals were brought to the UK and I very much doubt they had a visa....  while many Afghans who helped the British during the war were left behind.....As for the Rwanda agreement, suddenly the government is trying to pass laws that would enable this to happen.  The government is not above the law!There is an enormous difference between refugees and illegal immigrants - though this governments puts them all together under the latter label.

Ivonne Holliday ● 586d

The Supreme Court’s judgment does not preclude the possibility of a treaty which would ensure that anyone refused asylum in Rwanda could not be deported but would have to be returned to the UK. There is no evidence that the government intends to break the law.  I fear that some of the contributors to the Forum are more interested in attacking the government than in solving the problem of illegal migration.

Steven Rose ● 586d

To quote Albert Einstein: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - and Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying, “The problem with common sense is that it's not so common.” :-)

Michael Ixer ● 586d

Precisely Jane, what a contradiction.As for the Minister for Common Sense......  Pfff! 

Ivonne Holliday ● 587d

And they claim to be the party of law and order!

Jane Carter ● 587d

According to the headline in The Telegraph today, the PM will use emergency law to start the flights to Rwanda.So, it is true.  The Tory government is above the law.....Unforgivable!

Ivonne Holliday ● 587d

I think we can all agree that the boats crossing the channel should be stopped. I seem to recall that at one time we had an agreement - the Dublin Agreement? - to allow illegitimate asylum seekers to be returned to another country. Mr Sunak was part of the government that abandoned that, if I remember correctly?I'm not sure anyone is gleeful about the Supreme Court effectively having to rule that the government is either ignorant of or trying to ignore its treaty obligations; and it's interesting some MPs seem to be saying the court ruling should be ignored. Wouldn't the government be better doing something about arresting the people smugglers and prosecuting them rather than criminalising their victims? Those travelling on the boats seem to have no problems finding the criminals, so why can't the border forces?Perhaps a treaty with Rwanda is a solution but, given our government seems happy to reverse treaty obligations, can we be certain Rwanda won't as well? Personally, I'm not convinced this a solution that will cope with the number of asylum seekers already here or deter sufficient new arrivals. Is there a detailed document explaining the mechanism alongside projected numbers on a timeline and comparing the costs with alternatives, or do we just have a promise that it will work?I'm not sure about Libyan refugees but I guess safety is relative; Rwanda doesn't have civil strife as I believe Libya does, while I think over the past couple of decades the UK has a better (although perhaps not perfect) human rights than Rwanda?

Michael Ixer ● 587d

So does that necessarily mean his comments aren't true (that she only did the photocopying)? I don't think it would be the first time an MP or cabinet member has "embroidered" their CV, I suppose bring economical with the truth is a given for many politicians? Perhaps not something one expects a lawyer to do, though?Someone was pointing out that James Cleverly has a degree in Hospitality Management, so should be great at organising the Downing Street parties. However, looking at the thread about the "minister for common sense", one shouldn't be too sniffy about people's education (or lack of it), etc. I had a team member with a degree in Hospitality Management who was keen to do Information Security. She was sponsored to do an MSc in Infosec at Royal Holloway. That knowledge, coupled with management and communications skills transferred from her first degree coupled with hard work and enthusiasm, made her an excellent team member. (And she organised great team Xmas parties. :-) )

Michael Ixer ● 587d

Philip Kelvin is a well known Labour member so no surprise in the comments.

Robert Wheeler ● 587d

Oh dear, as well as not being very bright, it seems that Cruella boosted her CV somewhat doubtfully: her profile on the website of No5 Chambers, where she worked before becoming an MP, claimed that she "is a contributor to" the 2007 bestseller, Gambling for Local Authorities, Licensing, Planning and Regeneration.But the book's author, Philip Kolvin KC, has said that she made no written or editorial contribution to the book, and the extent of her involvement was menial: "on one occasion I asked her to do some photocopying for the book, which she did".

Richard Carter ● 587d

I wonder if her Master's under the Entente Cordiale Scholar on French and European Law obtained at the Sorbonne did not include legal aspects of asylum seeking law be it French, European or British........

Ivonne Holliday ● 588d

Today's PMQs should be interesting ...Aside from any other considerations such as attempting to politically interfer with the police, it perhaps vidicates the PM's sacking Braverman because, as a lawyer, she didn't seem on top of all the relevant legal aspects of asylum seeking?

Michael Ixer ● 588d