Social UK leader Rishi Sunak faces Conservative rebellion in Parliament over his Rwanda asylum plan

[LeonardoBjj]

BY JILL LAWLESS
Updated 8:26 AM BRT, January 16, 2024

LONDON (AP) — U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak faces rebellion from senior lawmakers in his Conservative Party over his stalled plan to send asylum-seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda, a controversial and expensive policy that the British leader has made central to his attempt to win an election this year.

To do that he needs to unite his fractious party, which trails far behind the Labour opposition in opinion polls. But the liberal and authoritarian wings of the Conservatives — always uneasy allies — are at loggerheads over the Rwanda plan. Moderates worry the policy is too extreme, while many on the party’s powerful right wing think it doesn’t go far enough.

In a blow to Sunak, two deputy chairmen of the Conservative Party say they will vote to toughen up the government’s flagship Safety of Rwanda Bill in the House of Commons on Tuesday. Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith announced they will back amendments seeking to close down asylum-seekers’ avenues of appeal against deportation to Rwanda.

“I want this legislation to be as strong as possible,” Clarke-Smith wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter.

More than 60 Tory lawmakers, including former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, support amendments to toughen the legislation, and some say they will vote against the bill as a whole if it is not strengthened. Along with opposition party votes, that might be enough to kill the legislation. That would be a major blow to Sunak’s authority and potentially fatal to the Rwanda plan.

Sunak insists the bill goes as far as the government can because Rwanda will pull out of its agreement to rehouse asylum-seekers if the U.K. breaks international law.

Conservative moderates, meanwhile, worry the bill already flirts with breaking international law and say they will oppose it if it gets any tougher. Those concerns were underscored by the United Nations’ refugee agency, which said Monday that, even with the treaty and new legislation, the Rwanda plan “is not compatible with international refugee law.”

Sunak has made the Rwanda policy central to his pledge to “stop the boats” bringing unauthorized migrants to the U.K. across the English Channel from France. More than 29,000 people made the perilous journey in 2023, down from 42,000 the year before. Five people died on the weekend while trying to launch a boat from northern France in the dark and winter cold.

London and Kigali made a deal almost two years ago under which migrants who reach Britain across the Channel would be sent to Rwanda, where they would stay permanently. Britain has paid Rwanda at least 240 million pounds ($305 million) under the agreement, but no one has yet been sent to the East African country.

The plan has been criticized as inhumane and unworkable by human rights groups and challenged in British courts. In November the U.K. Supreme Court ruled the policy is illegal because Rwanda isn’t a safe country for refugees.

In response to the court ruling, Britain and Rwanda signed a treaty pledging to strengthen protections for migrants. Sunak’s government argues that the treaty allows it to pass a law declaring Rwanda a safe destination.

If approved by Parliament, the law would allow the government to “disapply” sections of U.K. human rights law when it comes to Rwanda-related asylum claims and make it harder to challenge the deportations in court.

If the bill is passed by the House of Commons on Wednesday, it will go to the House of Lords, Parliament’s upper chamber, where it faces more opposition.

https://apnews.com/article/uk-rwanda-migrants-bill-parliament-38eed6a75913fd4a05ae4d58c1a19f63

 

[gatchaman]

Thread needs more lego

 

[legatoblues]

Should just build a wall

 

[Goonerview]

The Conservative party are finished, imo.

Labor and Keir Starmer will win the next election.

 

[Hugh G Rection]

The Conservative party are finished, imo.

Labor and Keir Starmer will win the next election.

I agree and that is a very depressing thought

 

[Koya]

Why do they want to send back afghans and syrians and senegalese immigrants to Rwanda ?? Why not to their native freaking country ??

Yes you don't have an agreement with them at the moment but that's what politics is meant to be : work on agreements.

I don't freakin understand how those politicians think their ideas are bright somehow and spend hundred of millions on it

 

[Scheme]

Why do they want to send back afghans and syrians and senegalese immigrants to Rwanda ?? Why not to their native freaking country ??

Yes you don't have an agreement with them at the moment but that's what politics is meant to be : work on agreements.

I don't freakin understand how those politicians think their ideas are bright somehow and spend hundred of millions on it

I'm guessing if you're seeking asylum from a country that you shouldn't want to return to that same country.

 

[Sweater of AV]

"Britain has paid Rwanda at least 240 million pounds ($305 million) under the agreement, but no one has yet been sent to the East African country."

Lol. Sunak getting dismantled by Rwanda.

 

[Scerpi]

Several countries across the EU are done with unabated immigration

France is completely fucked

 

[Koya]

I'm guessing if you're seeking asylum from a country that you shouldn't want to return to that same country.

But those are not political refugees for the most those are economical ones.

I don't see how sending them to Rwanda is not going to create an explosive situation.

Better for tadjiks to go back to Tadjikistan than that

 

[Deleted member 585708]

Why do they want to send back afghans and syrians and senegalese immigrants to Rwanda ?? Why not to their native freaking country ??

Yes you don't have an agreement with them at the moment but that's what politics is meant to be : work on agreements.

I don't freakin understand how those politicians think their ideas are bright somehow and spend hundred of millions on it

It's to combat passportlessness.

Part of the plan of human traffickers is to send illegal immigrants with no documentation so they can't be returned quickly to their country of origin.

Rwanda is a crude and frankly ridiculous attempt to address that.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

The Conservative party are finished, imo.

Labor and Keir Starmer will win the next election.

- It 's such a terrible plan. That looks like something from a cartoon like Family Guy!

 

[SandisLL]

It's to combat passportlessness.

Part of the plan of human traffickers is to send illegal immigrants with no documentation so they can't be returned quickly to their country of origin.

Rwanda is a crude and frankly ridiculous attempt to address that.

U.K should enchance and improve border control and financing for military.
Rather than to negotiate with Ruanda and after this Ruanda will Milk U.K endlessly....till ....the END....each year...Day by Day.

 

[Deleted member 585708]

U.K should enchance and improve border control and financing for military.
Rather than to negotiate with Ruanda and after this Ruanda will Milk U.K endlessly....till ....the END....each year...Day by Day.

Labour are offering just that - they want to target the smuggling gangs, not a multi million pound pink elephant of a policy.

The Tories are truly desperate.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Rishi Sunak’s Rwanda deportation bill passes third reading in Commons​

Flagship policy passes committee stage after tense lead-up in which Tory divisions came to the fore

Rishi Sunak has survived a damaging row over his flagship Rwanda bill after a Conservative rebellion melted away and dozens of rightwing MPs balked at further undermining the prime minister’s authority.

After a crucial 11th hour meeting of more than 45 Tory rebels, the group’s leaders concluded that defeating the bill by voting alongside Labour during an election year could risk collapsing the government.


Just 11 Conservative hardliners , including the former home secretary Suella Braverman and Robert Jenrick, the former immigration minister, voted against the legislation, which passed by 320 votes to 276, a majority of 44.

There was relief in Downing Street that after days of chaos and infighting at Westminster, during which dozens of Tories rebelled to support amendments to try to toughen up the legislation, the bill has eventually passed its final Commons hurdle.

Sunak now faces further bruising battles with peers who are already threatening to amend the Rwanda deportation plan in the House of Lords to make sure that it complies with international law.

The legislation will then face a series of legal challenges from individuals threatened with deportation to Rwanda. Government lawyers have suggested there is only a “50/50” chance of the first flight taking off before an autumn general election.

The Guardian understands that the Home Office has already selected the first 100 people who will be deported. Officials said the cases had been selected because there were no obvious grounds for appeal.

Despite his gamble to face down the right of his party paying off, Sunak has been left weakened by the resignations of two Conservative party deputy chairs, Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith, and scores of his MPs arguing that the policy will not work.

He suffered a further rebellion on Wednesday as 61 Tory MPs voted for an amendment, drafted by Jenrick, that was designed to block last-minute injunctions from European judges. The amendment was ultimately rejected by MPs by 65 to 536.

The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, told MPs on Wednesday evening: “This chaos leaves the prime minister’s authority in tatters – he’s in office but not in power. No one agrees with him on his policy. And the real weakness is that he doesn’t even agree with it himself.”

At prime minister’s questions, Sunak vowed that he would “get a grip” on the small boats crisis. Yet Downing Street did not deny reports that the Home Office has lost contact with more than 4,000 people earmarked for removal to Rwanda.

The government had announced a number of “sweeteners” to make the bill more acceptable to Tory MPs, including a planned change to Whitehall rules meaning civil servants must ignore Strasbourg judgments halting Rwanda deportation flights.

However, unions condemned the plans, which mean that Home Office staff removing asylum seekers will be told to implement last-minute injunctions from the European court of human rights only if ordered to do so by a minister. Three civil service unions said this would mean that senior mandarins and border force staff would have to choose between breaking international law, disobeying the instructions of a minister, and resigning.

Ministers had already announced plans to expand court capacity and recruit 150 new judges to fast-track asylum appeals under the Rwanda bill. The most senior judge in England and Wales, Sue Carr, spoke out after the announcement, saying the deployment of judges should be “exclusively a matter for the judiciary”.

However, ministers were unable to offer the concessions to harden up the bill as a result of warnings from the 100-plus One Nation group of centre-right MPs that they could not tolerate attempts to make the legislation even more hardline.

During the second day of debates over the amendments, Jeremy Wright, the former Conservative attorney general, said it would be a mistake for the government to imply that international law does not matter.

“What [the government] cannot properly do is set themselves up as judge in their own cause on questions of international law. This house would be wrong to pass a bill that suggested that they could,” he said.

In the Commons, Braverman had pleaded with colleagues to vote against the bill, telling them: “This is our last chance to fix this problem. If we get it wrong, the British people will not forgive us.”


Tory rebels even drafted their own Rwanda bill, which they said would block all migrant appeals against deportation without breaching international law.

A total of 11 Tory MPs voted against the bill, including former cabinet minister Simon Clarke, veteran Tory Bill Cash and New Conservatives leaders Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger. A further 18, from both wings of the party, abstained.

However, the majority of Tory rebels came to a different conclusion. “I can’t walk through the voting lobbies with Keir Starmer when there’s an election around the corner and especially on the issue of migration,” one told the Guardian.

Others were concerned that blowing up the Rwanda plan by voting against third reading of the bill would immediately throw the government into chaos and leave the Tories facing electoral oblivion. The Tory MP Bob Seely said: “We kill the bill tonight, we can all go and look for new jobs, so that is what we are facing.”

Tim Loughton, a former minister, warned Conservative MPs who intended to vote against the bill to “stop and consider before they pull the pin out of another grenade”, arguing that although it was not perfect, it was “the only show in town”.

One Tory rebel source, speaking after the last-minute meeting, told reporters: “The majority of those people who spoke in the room have decided to back the bill at third reading. A small number of colleagues will vote no on a point of principle. But the overwhelming likelihood is that the bill will pass probably quite comfortably this evening.”

There were farcical moments in a day of drama, as when Rwanda’s president, Paul Kagame, suggested that the UK’s plans to bring in its deportation plan were taking too long. He told the World Economic Forum in Davos: “There are limits for how long this can drag on.” Asked by journalists if he was following the debate in London, Kagame was blunt: “It is the UK’s problem, not ours.”

His government has received around £240m from the UK as part of the deal, with a further £50m expected later this year. Kagame suggested this could be returned if Sunak failed to get the deportation scheme off the ground.

“The money is going to be used on those people who will come,” he said. “If they don’t come, we can return the money.”

However, a Rwandan government spokeswoman later said the country has “no obligation” to return any of the funds paid, but if the UK requested a refund, “we will consider this”.

She made clear that this would apply only to a portion of funds that were specifically allocated to pay for support for migrants. Senior Home Office officials have so far refused to say how much more money the UK has already agreed to pay Rwanda under the initial five-year deal.

Enver Solomon, the chief executive of the Refugee Council, said the bill would result in thousands of desperate people disappearing in the UK to avoid being deported. “It’s time for the government to admit that the Rwanda plan is entirely unworkable and will only cause more human suffering.

“The reality is that the government’s plans are pushing desperate people into unsafe and dangerous situations. We fear many of them will disappear, facing the risk of abuse and exploitation to avoid being sent to Rwanda.”

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ortation-bill-passes-third-reading-in-commons

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Home Office hires hangar for staff to practise Rwanda deportations​

Officials will be taught how to carry out deportations, including how to handle people who physically resist

The Home Office has hired an aircraft hangar and aeroplane body to train security staff on how to deport people, as the UK government increases the number of people it forcibly removes each year.

Officials confirmed on Friday the department had increased its capacity to train officials to carry out deportations, including how to handle people who physically resist. Details of the expansion of the programme were first reported by the Times.

The specialist training, which the government has carried out for years, will also be given to staff who deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, as the government pushes ahead with its plan to begin flights to the central African country by the spring.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “Since 2015, the government has had training facilities to ensure escorts can respond professionally to the challenges of removing people with no right to be in the UK. This includes practical sessions so escorts have the skills they need to deal with different scenarios.

“As we ramp up removal activity we will continue to ensure new escorts have the training facilities necessary.”

A government source said the department had recently hired the hangar and fuselage so that staff could practise accompanying people on to planes and learn what to do if they resisted either by fighting back or refusing to move.

It comes as the government steadily increases the number of people it deports after a sharp drop during Covid and as a result of the new returns deal with Albania. In the year to March 2023, Britain forcibly returned 4,193 people, nearly a third more than in the previous 12 months.

The training will also be given to security officials who work on flights to Rwanda, sources confirmed, as ministers continued to push for the first flight to take off in spring.

MPs passed the Rwanda bill this week without amendments, but it faces a two-month period of debate in the Lords before returning to the Commons to consider any further amendments. Rishi Sunak has put the scheme to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda at the heart of his plan to stop small boats crossing the Channel.

The prime minister said on Friday: “In order to fully solve this problem we need to have a deterrent, so that when people come here illegally they won’t be able to stay and will be removed.

“That is why the Rwanda scheme is so important, and that’s why I’m determined to get it through parliament and get it up and running as quickly as possible so we can properly solve this problem.”


https://www.theguardian.com/politic...gar-for-staff-to-practise-rwanda-deportations

 

[The_Renaissance]

If they're truly seeking asylum, any safe port in a storm surely? Rwanda isn't dangerous by African standards. Safer than some European capital cities. Their government doesn't fuck around regarding crime.

I do think it's a bit weird to involve Rwanda in this though. Just introduce much tougher laws, especially when most of these people are fighting age men rather than the women and children they are leaving behind.


There will be 100% some kind of dodgy financial benefit for Sunak and Co to involve Rwanda in this.