General British politics discussion thread

I don't understand you. People don't ignore court orders. Maybe the people in control of the policy at government level would be willing to do.

But at ground level the people who do maintenance on the plane, refuel it, pilot it, steward it, the ATC, the people who file the flight plan. How willing would they be to be hauled in front of a judge? If the flight took off whilst ignoring a court order would it even be considered to be insured? If not, it basically wouldn't be able to fly through anyone elses airspace, quite a problem to reach Rwanda.

The blithe "we're the UK government, nothing can stop us" attitude has been proven wrong time and time again.

Now maybe they will ultimately be able to frame the law in a way that makes it completely legal and doesn't clash with any other agreements they've signed. But until they manage to do so your statement that "if they want to put people on flights to Rwanda, nobody is going to stop them." is at best illogical and at worst Daily Express levels of nonsense.

Unwillingness to actually pay people to go out and stop them I suspect.

Last guy to try it was Charles I. You may have forgotten how that ended but you can guarantee that Charles III remembers, and that's why he won't try anything like that.

No airline / leasing firm will break a court order of that type as it may see them barred from operating elsewhere. The RAF won't do the task in the first place

There have.

For example, YouGov polled people last June about "the government's proposed policy to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda". The outcome was:

• Strongly support: 24%
• Somewhat support: 18%
• Somewhat oppose: 11%
• Strongly oppose: 28%
• Don't know: 19%

As might be expected, support closely correlated with political identity: 70% of Tory supporters supported the Rwanda policy, somewhat or strongly, as did 68% of Leavers. By contrast, 65% of Labour supporters, 67% of LD supporters and 64% of Remainers opposed it. So you're right, it's very much an "appeal to the base" strategy rather than a "try to win the middle ground" strategy.

A more recent YouGov poll on 14 November, with a differently-worded question, nevertheless produced broadly similar results:

• Strongly support: 28%
• Tend to support: 20%
• Tend to oppose: 11%
• Strongly oppose: 25%
• Don't know: 18%

And the breakdown by political identity: Tory, 77% support; Leaver, 75% support; Lab, 61% oppose; LD, 59% oppose; Remainer, 58% oppose.

[Worth pointing out that the November poll was criticised, since the question referred to some asylum applicants "being flown to Rwanda, in Africa, for their asylum applications to be processed". In fact the UK policy is to fly them to Rwanda and not process their asylum applications. Instead, they can apply to the Rwandan government for asylum in Rwanda, and the Rwandan government will process those applications. The plan is frequently mischaracterised in this way, and it's very possible that what a lot of poll respondents are expressing opinions on is the plan they think the government has, rather than the plan the government actually has.]

Early days, but there has also been polling on public opinion following the Supreme Court rejection of the policy. On the question of whether UK should remain a member of the ECHR or withdraw, the results are:

• Remain a member: 58% (Tories, 25%; Leavers, 24%; Lab, 81%; LD, 79%, Remainers, 80%)
• Withdraw: 28% (Tories, 54%; Leavers; 55%; Lab; 9%; LD, 11%, Remainers, 9%)
• Not sure: 21%

And finally, what should the government do in response to the Supreme Court rejection of the Rwanda policy?

• Find a safe country to make a similar agreement with: 29% (Tories, 49%; Leavers, 46%; Lab,12 %; LD 17%; Remainers, 14%)
• Scrap the policy entirely: 39% (Tories, 16%; Leavers, 20%; Lab, 68%; LD 63%; Remainers, 64%)
• Something else: 14% (Tories, 22%; Leavers, 20%; Lab, 6%; LD 10%; Remainers, 9%)
• Don't know: 18% (Tories, 13%; Leavers, 14%; Lab, 14%; LD 10%; Remainers, 13%)

[Presumably this poll was taken in the brief window between the Supreme Court judgment being handed down and the government press conference declaring its plan to turn the agreement with Rwanda into a Treaty, enact legislation declaring Rwanda to be a safe country, and just bull ahead with the plan, since none of the options (other than "something else") really cover that.]

I haven't read the judgment yet. But as I understand it the central question was whether Rwanda is a "safe country", meaning (among other things) one where an asylum seeker with a well-founded case for protection was not at risk of being sent somewhere where they would be at risk — typically but not necessarily the country from which they had fled (a practice called "refoulement" in the trade). UK's own law, as well a several international treaties to which the UK is a party, forbid refoulement, or putting asylum seekers at risk of refoulement.

Looking at the evidence presented in the case by both sides the court found that Rwanda is not a safe country; therefore, a policy of sending asylum seekers there is not lawful.

But a policy of sending asylum seekers to a different country would be lawful, if that country were a safe country (and if the UK could make an agreement with such a country).

Or, a policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda could be lawful, if there were credible, effective safeguards that satisfied the UK courts that they were not at risk of refoulement in Rwanda.

One way the UK could try to do this would be to change the terms of the deal so that the UK, not Rwanda, would remain responsible for processing the applications of the people concerned, and would accept responsibility to afford them protection if they were found to be entitled. It would then be strongly arguable that Rwanda would have no reason to refoule the asylum seekers — they would be the UK's problem, not Rwanda's — and therefore assurances that they would not do so might be more credible.

What do you think will happen that makes you so sure the flights will be leaving? Do you really think Sunak will go against the ruling of the supreme Court?

Bear in mind he said "this is the law we have to abide by it" when they ruled against another independence referendum for Scotland, if he now chooses to ignore the courts ruling then Scotland can do the same and hold another independence referendum.

I cant see into Rishi's mind, but he is devious and cunning and he has pinned his reputation on this one.

He wouldnt do that if he hadnt already interrogated options.

The only thing that can save his career is to see this one through now. He could have backed down and didnt need to make this commitment.

The fact that he has done it makes me pretty confident he has a solution.

Absolutely nothing would suggest he is devious and cunning. He is PM via last man standing and was chancellor because he was the one who agreed to be Cummings gimp.

His "career" is already over, Tories lose the next GE no matter and if he tries to force flights through there will be years of legal wrangling, he will be out of office but he wants to land this on Labour's lap.

The only flight will be Rishi to California.

I don't think Sunak gives a hoot about immigration or boats in the Channel. He seems much more a money merchant, rather than a right wing / far right ideologue. All of this stuff looks like mere posturing to boost his profile.

I think Sunak cares deeply about stopping the boats because that is his best chance of hanging onto power, and thus making more money for himself, him family, his friends and the party donors.

Deep down he will never be personally impacted by any migrants, so from that POV I agree he doesn't care, but he very much cares as it is the one area that he believes (with some justification) that this is the path to winning (or at least reducing the loss).

I do think that he is a right-wing ideologue. Maybe not as far right as some others, but very much a person that believes that the poor, sick, disabled etc costing him and everyone money and should be reduced as much as possible. Migrants are just the outward manifestation of this.

One thing that always comes across in Vox pops, is the line "we should look after our own first". I hate to tell these people but the migrants are not the reason for the lack of safe school buildings, lack of hospitals, cancelling HS2, lack of police numbers, lack of courts and prison places. Any money saved from migrants will not be spent on libraries, of local pools, or social housing.

Why do you believe that he has a plan? Suellen only recently wrote that he didn't have a plan. And then poof, within hours of losing the case not only has he dealt with the fallout but he now has a plan? A plan that he didn't bother with before?

His 'plan' to stop the boats was the Rwanda plan. Even if the court has allowed it, it was never going to be the answer. So as a plan it sucked. But he stuck to it as it was all he had. But now we are expected to believe that he has magically created a plan? But one which he isn't able to tell anyone the details or give any explanation of?