The Lords gave in to the Commons on the Safety of Rwanda Bill last night, as ultimately they must. Democracy is sovereign and if those who have been elected insist that red is blue then the Lords, having used their best endeavours to request that the Commons change its mind, must give way even though they know that what the Commons is claiming is wrong.
This is what happened last night. The Lords eventually agreed to let a Bill promoted by a corrupt and racist government pass despite all the false claims within it. Rwanda is not safe, whatever the Tories say.
The Lords are also right that the damage to the UK's reputation as an upholder of international law will be considerable.
The law that will now be enacted is also absurd. Instead of in any way solving the problem of migration it will throw vast sums of money at token gesture deportations that will be devastating for those involved, including most of the public servants who will have to be engaged in this process. It is not even clear, as yet, that any planes will be found to undertake the necessary flights to Rwanda.
And at the end of the day, after all this waste of effort, political capital, international reputation and money, the policy will not work. The chance of being deported to Rwanda will be so small, so extraordinary is the cost of each person deported and so limited is the capacity to actually secure agreement for anyone to leave, that the deterrent effect on those seeking to cross the Channel will be precisely zero. The boats will not be stopped, and that was the aim, racist as it always was.
So, what has been achieved by the Tories? They have proved that they are racist, vindictive, callous and straightforwardly cruel.
They have evidenced that the truth does not matter to them, and nor does the rule of law.
They have delivered overwhelming evidence of their ability to waste public funds when it suits them.
Most of all, they have shown that they are liars. Rwanda is not safe, even if they have passed a law saying it is, contrary to all the evidence.
So, electorally I think this also backfires for them. As disasters go, this one knows almost no limits.
The absurdity was apparent in comments by Tim Loughton MP on Sky last night. His claim was that we must have somewhere to send people who came to the UK who we decide are not refugees but who could not be returned to their country of origin because they would be refused entry there or they would be harmed if they did return. In other words, they are undoubtedly refugees with a right to asylum but we just do not want them, which contravenes international law. He then wanted them sent to Rwanda, with a dubious recent history on this issue.
You could not make such absurd claims up, but he offered then as if he was sincere. If he was then he also proved he will be doing politics a public service at the next election by standing down. In the kindest possible comment I can offer, let me suggest that he clearly is unable to construct coherent thoughts.
And meanwhile, some poor refugees will suffer the most inhumane treatment by this government. It is my hope that lawyers will still be able to find ways to obstruct their evil desires. What else is Common Law for?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
This terrible bill targets the victims. The tiny number of people who may be deported will not be a deterrent. All traffickers want is the money desperate people will pay to cross the channel, they have no interest in what happens to the people who cross. Desperate people will continue to do desperate things one way or another. This bill is nothing more than performative cruelty at exorbitant cost. Viscious, cruel, spiteful and ineffective.
Agreed
Fly out to keep out. Not quite as catchy as Eat out to help out. Rishi should try harder but probably won’t.
Or we could spend the money on some sort of ‘Refugee Service’ so that you could claim asylum in the UK abroad so bypassing the traffickers.
Followed by help with Housing, Health and Employment.
Looking at the record of Jewish children who were taken in by the UK in the run up to WW2 and their descendants it was a deal that we did very well out of.
We could also look at the factors that ‘push’ refugees and tackle them. Clearly our military adventures abroad have made things worse not better as has our tendency to pander to dictators.
We clould also give ferry tickets to those who have made their case to come to the UK. That would stop the boats.
There’s a reason why we broke up families and only rescued children – the voting public did not want refugees then, either. Racism does not only thrive within the Tory Party.
The Rwanda legislation is one of the last desperate acts of a government that has lost any moral legitimacy but refuses to call an election. It is abhorrent that the UK is abdicating its responsibility in this performatively cruel way.
The Conservatives have trampled all over norms and conventions of behaviour in public life since 2019 and this is just another plumbing of ever deeper depths. I suspect we might see a testing at the Supreme Court of Dicey’s proposition that parliament’s legislative sovereignty is absolute and unlimited.
This is what the US says about Rwanda:
“Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: unlawful or arbitrary killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention; political prisoners or detainees; transnational repression against individuals located outside the country, including killings, kidnappings, and violence; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on free expression and media, including threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; serious restrictions on internet freedom; substantial interference with the freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association, including overly restrictive laws on the organization, funding, or operation of nongovernmental and civil society organizations; serious and unreasonable restrictions on political participation; and serious government restrictions on or harassment of domestic and international human rights organizations.
The government took some steps to prosecute or punish officials reported to have committed human rights abuses and acts of corruption, including within the security services, but impunity involving civilian officials and some members of the state security forces was a problem.”
https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/rwanda/
Safe my arse.
Precisely
Safe?
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, whether you canmake words mean different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumty, ” which is to be master – that is all.”
We are through the looking glass!
See also Michela Wrongs book do not disturb. Someone who really knows East Africa.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/apr/13/do-not-disturb-review-the-disturbing-death-of-a-rwandan-dissident?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Yes, but here is the interesting question now. What would Labour do about it?
They say they wilkl repeal it
Sense, for once
Yes, Labour say they will repeal the Act, but only because it is too costly. Not for any humane reason.
It also raises questions about the role of the Lords.
In the 20th century the power of the Lords was rightly reduced. They could have no say on money bills.
They could delay a bill for up to two years. So a govt with a fresh mandate could get its legislation enacted. If the bill was towards the end of the Parliament, the delay could effectively kill the bill. The rationale was that a government could be out of touch towards the end of tis term.
I think the Lords should be abolished in its present form and replaced by a Senate ( I would support an appointed element, perhaps with some places nominated by e..g TUC -but that is separate issue)
But that raises the question as to their powers. If mainly or wholly elected, how far should they be able to delay or even stop legislation. As it stands a govt is elected by a minority of voters. If the Commons had PR, one could argue that is representative of the nation.
I don’t know the answer. We see calls for the reform of the Upper House. We need to give the question some serious thought.
“So, what has been achieved by the Tories? They have proved that they are racist, vindictive, callous and straightforwardly cruel.”
You missed out ‘stupid’.
Sorry
Quite apart from the immorality of the scheme, the absurdity of the proposition that it will act as a deterrent is self obvious. In fact, quite the opposite. Either migrants will believe the idea that Rwanda is a safe and welcoming country with no risk of refoulement, in which case there is no downside to being refused refugee status, or Rwanda is not safe. In the latter case I’m sure the people traffickers will be more than happy to help migrants disappear into the black economy when they arrive here. For a fee, of course. Which makes it a win-win for the traffickers.
Scorched earth tactics, calculated to return a far right government if/when LINO fails.
Airlines and airports agreeing to this barbaric deportation scheme will be flooded with protesters blocking runways and acces to fhe the flights that will caiuse chaos and be completely counter-prductive from the Tories poin of view in “stopping the boats”.r
Whatever happened to MI5 and MI6? Post WW2 they used to be trumpeted by politicians, films and the media for their boundless skills in ferreting out the bad guys. Surely it wouldn’t be beyond their skills to liaise with their counterparts in Europe and target the traffickers rather than their victims, or is liaison with Europe proscribed post-Brexit? Very large inflatable boats and outboard engines are continually being sourced on the continent for single-passage usage, so there is a sizeable trail of clues to follow and the middle-men shouldn’t be too hard to find. Some of them must know who the ‘Mister Bigs’ are.
Instead we witness an utterly inept and dishonest UK Gov’t spending a fortune and an enormous amount of time, not to mention political capital, in trying to pass a bill that is guaranteed to fail to “stop the boats”. But it’s not just the boats that won’t be stopped; the loss of migrants’ lives won’t be stopped either, or is that part of the plan too?
The only word I can describe the Rwanda scheme, is that it is evil.
This whole episode is shameful. I saw this speech made by Natalie Bennett in the HoL last night posted by someone in the Guardian comments….I can’t imagine how frustrating it must feel to be trying to uphold some moral , principled and humane behaviour when confronted with such relentless cruelty.
Natalie Bennett (Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle) in the House of Lords at midnight last night:
My Lords, I rise with a heavy heart, given the lack of further amendment, to this dreadful, international law-busting Bill. I note that in the other place, the SNP twice used procedural Motions to delay it by 15 minutes each time. I applaud them for that, and I am not going to take up the same length, but I am going to take a moment to mark this historic occasion.
Your Lordships’ House has put a lot of work into trying to make the Bill comply with international law, with basic moral laws and with the principles of justice and fairness. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, earlier today said:
“Its costs will be measured not only in money but in principles debased—disregard for our international commitments, avoiding statutory protections for the vulnerable, and the removal of judicial scrutiny”.
Nothing has changed in the Bill in the last few hours.
I note that Amnesty International this evening warned airline companies that many members of the public take an extremely negative view of the content of the policy. Those were really unnecessary words, because no company of any repute whatsoever is going to take part in implementing this dreadful policy. That is a measure of the Bill and the disgraceful, despicable actions it represents.
I am disappointed to see the almost empty Benches around me. I note that the Liberal Democrat Benches are here, having played their part in trying to stop the Bill at Second Reading, and I commend them for that action that the Green group supported. They are still here to the bitter end.
We heard from the Minister, we will hear tonight, and no doubt will keep hearing in the coming days that “Well, we’re the unelected House”. That does not mean that this House is without moral or legal responsibilities. I have asked the House a number of times: if not now, when? What will it take to make this House say, “Here we take a stand”?
We have had the abomination of the Elections Act, the elements of a policing Act that targeted Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people explicitly. We have had multiple indefensible restrictions on the right to protest. Now, we are letting through an attack on some of the most vulnerable, desperate people on this planet. What more will we let through? I suggest to noble Lords as they leave this Chamber tonight to ask themselves that question.
With a desperate, flailing government party bereft of ideas and philosophy and without principles, this House will keep being tested. I ask these empty Benches: you might be waiting for an election, but what kind of a country will it be if you do not stand up now?
Good, and wise, words.
I spent an hour today trying to establish if those sent to Rwanda are free to move elsewhere? Not easy to find that info. For instance, could a charity assist those sent to Rwanda return to Europe? If they were channel migrants, what was their refugee status before they arrived? Could they, for instance, be allowed to travel back to France? There must be those who would be very keen to make a nonsense of this law, and to see the same individuals returning to the UK (even on ‘small boats’) would be a major embarrassment to the UK Government.
This law says they must never return here, as I understand it
The 2019 Tory manifesto never mentioned Rwanda. Therefore the Lords were free to vote the bill down at second reading the (Salisbury convention only applies to manifesto promises). Labour declined to oppose the bill, even though they will stop the policy if ever in government. Why were Labour complicit in this constitutional chicanery? Utterly dishonest.
Nothing will change because the two big parties like their ability to do whatever they like when in power. The Lords exists as a pretence that there is a revising chamber, purely to fix the government’s own mistakes. Everything else gets refused by the Commons. Electing the Lords will not change anything. See my latest book for what needs to be done, including the first ever written constitution for the UK (as a draft) and completely upending the divine right of kings that our politicians love.
Mishal Hussein on R4 this am did a good job interrogating Tomlinson the ‘illegal’ (sic) immigration minister. Him refusing to accept her suggestions that even those who have experienced torture, discrimination, persecution etc would still be deported. A despicable man representing a despicable government.
As described by John Crace
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/23/rude-patronising-and-out-of-his-depth-minister-michael-tomlinson-ticks-all-the-boxes?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Spot on
From what I have seen precisely one person across both houses emerged from yesterday with any credit: Baroness Bennett.