What on earth is this government plotting to do now ?

Today it lost the Supreme Court ruling with regard to Rwanda and it's policy was deemed 'unlawful'. Sunak then stands up and says that no foreign court will stop him enacting the policy. In case he doesn't realise it, the UK Supreme Court is NOT a foreign court.

Now he plans to invoke emergency legislation that deems Rwanda a 'safe country' so he can sign another treaty. I'm sorry ? What ? He can pass emergency legislation saying the moon is made of cheese if he wants, but it doesn't make it so. And the whole crux of the Supreme Court ruling today was that whatever treaty people sign with Rwanda, their government cannot be trusted to stick by it - see treaty with Israel.

Also he will pass new legislation that says the UK doesn't have to abide by the international treaties and conventions that it has signed up to. How on earth will any country EVER trust the UK again if they are saying 'we can unilaterally ignore anything we sign up to if we choose to do so'. The UK would immediately become a pariah state.

Leaving (or giving itself permission to ignore) the ECHR will annul the Good Friday Agreement and put at risk the current trade agreement with the EU.

Is Sunak willing to risk all of this just to keep a few ultra right wing nationalists onside ? If he had any conscience whatsoever, he would stand up to them and kick them out if they refuse to abide by the rule of law.

As an example, Deputy Party Chairman Lee Anderson has already said in writing on social media. "we should just ignore the law and stick these people on a plane tomorrow".

If the government of a country is willing to break it's own laws, why should any other citizen abide by them. These people need ousting as soon as possible and where necessary, prosecuted.

 

-- Edited by Bob in Spain on Thursday 16th of November 2023 07:23:42 AM

Trying to decide which of the three situations is worst - nearly did a poll on it.

1) According to the new immigration proposals, if you are married to somebody from overseas who is in the country on a visa, and if you earn less than 38,700 pounds, when your spouse comes to renew their visa, they will be declined and asked to leave the country regardless of how long they have lived in the UK.

2) Despite a spokesperson saying in July that all of Boris Johnson's Whatsapp messages had been handed over to the Covid inquiry, it has now come to light that Johnson has been 'unable to retrieve' any of his messages from Jan to Jun 2020 - the period leading up to and during the first lock down.

3) The government are adding a clause to proposed legislation such that if you are in receipt of any kind of benefit - including child benefit or even just a state pension - the government will have the right to access your bank account details without your knowledge or permission.

So take your pick.

For the spouses who are already here and renewing visas, the 38,700 is a household income amount

(Not defending it in the slightest !!!! But just to say, it's a joint income figure)

For those who are here and want to bring their spouse over for the first time, it's a single income figure.

The whole thing is utterly ridiculous, both for spouses and skilled workers.

And health workers have been exempted (because - guess what - all the OAPs would suddenly have no care workers or hospital staff or anything if the new skilled worker amount applied to them)

Blue_Belle wrote:

---

Coup Droit wrote:

---

For the spouses who are already here and renewing visas, the 38,700 is a household income amount

(Not defending it in the slightest !!!! But just to say, it's a joint income figure)

For those who are here and want to bring their spouse over for the first time, it's a single income figure.

The whole thing is utterly ridiculous, both for spouses and skilled workers.

And health workers have been exempted (because - guess what - all the OAPs would suddenly have no care workers or hospital staff or anything if the new skilled worker amount applied to them)

---

 We are in New Zealand for the next 5-6 years. So as it stands, I would need the near 39k. I don't earn that. But hey, I'm hoping it will change again by then 

---

 Hey FW- is there not a human rights thing here? If youre British, married for a number of years, with a child, maybe 2, surely you have a right to family life and if that involves coming back to Britain with your family, Id say you have every right. 

 

id like for someone to test that as its outrageous to think we wouldnt let you in due to an earnings threshold? 

JonH comes home wrote:

---

With this discussed above, and the Rwanda policy (Jenrick has just resigned) I find this Government morally repugnant. And inept.

A busted flush.

---

Braverman is clearly after Sunak's job by literally threatening to withdraw her support if her 'five conditions' aren't met with regard to the Immigration Bill. It is clear that for the ultra right wing element, this bill does not go far enough and they want to 'dis-apply' (which means break) the ECHR treaty on human rights.

Jenrick clearly thinks that Braverman will succeed in her take over and is aligning himself with her to further his own career prospects when she replaces Sunak.

The Tory Party is imploding before our very eyes and don't be surprised if there is a Vote of No Confidence in Sunak early in the new year - if not before.  The extremists are staking their entire electoral credibility on getting just one plane in the air to Rwanda with asylum seekers.

Also, and not publicised, according to Article 19 of the new treaty, the UK has to take Rwandan asylum seekers in return.  My question is why would there be asylum seekers from Rwanda if it is a safe country (unless they are talking about asylum seekers from 3rd countries).

So we may end up with MORE people claiming asylum in the UK as a result of this treaty if they send us more than we send them.

Oh, and the Rwandan government have now thrown a spanner in the works too by saying that if any treaty with the UK is in violation of International Law (including the ECHR), THEY will withdraw from the agreement anyway. (reported by Paul Brand ITV).

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1732453413210730743

This is beyond farce now.  As if sending 200 people to Rwanda is more important than the cost of living crisis or labour shortages in vital public sector services.

Reality has taken leave from the Tory party (or at least parts of it)

Taking the direct text from the Immigration Bill:

2. Safety of the Republic of Rwanda

(1) Every decision maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country.

So they are instructing the courts, the House of Lords and any other legal bodies to deem Rwanda safe regardless of any evidence that may or may not be presented. Yet Jenrick has resigned because he says this does not go far enough.

Unbelievable.