Good. Who even wants this? It's a stupid and very expensive policy that won't solve any actual problems.
Bring on the GE. Can't wait for this lot to get the boot.
Unfortunately the current UK government do not want to give up on the unlawful policy, and so may attempt to change the laws instead.
Which could entail the UK withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) amongst other moves.
I sure hope that's not the case. Would mean even more long lasting harm as they are on the way out of the door.
I don't know if they'll have time or enough political capital to get it through before November, and the reshuffle seems to be mostly trying to swing back slightly to the center, so hopefully they just write it off as a failed policy from Suella.
LONDON, Nov 15 (Reuters) - The UK Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the government's scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, dealing a massive blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's major election pledge on immigration before a vote expected next year.
The court unanimously rejected the government's appeal against an earlier ruling that migrants could not be sent to Rwanda because it could not be considered a safe third country.
The Rwanda scheme is the central plank of Sunak's immigration policy as he prepares to face an election next year, amid concern among some voters about the numbers of asylum seekers arriving in small boats on Britain's shores.
Announcing the court's decision, court President Robert Reed said the five judges involved agreed there were "substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement", being sent back to their country of origin.
But he left open the chance the scheme could be resurrected saying "the changes needed to eliminate the risk of refoulement may be delivered in the future, but they have not been shown to be in place now".
The ruling is a major setback to Sunak's promise to stop migrants arriving without permission on the south coast of Britain in small boats from Europe.
The original article contains 216 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Good. Who even wants this? It's a stupid and very expensive policy that won't solve any actual problems.
Bring on the GE. Can't wait for this lot to get the boot.
Unfortunately the current UK government do not want to give up on the unlawful policy, and so may attempt to change the laws instead.
Which could entail the UK withdrawing from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) amongst other moves.
I sure hope that's not the case. Would mean even more long lasting harm as they are on the way out of the door.
I don't know if they'll have time or enough political capital to get it through before November, and the reshuffle seems to be mostly trying to swing back slightly to the center, so hopefully they just write it off as a failed policy from Suella.
A majority of UK citizens, apparently
https://savanta.com/knowledge-centre/published-polls/rwanda-policy-poll-savanta-15-november-2023/
This is the best summary I could come up with:
LONDON, Nov 15 (Reuters) - The UK Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the government's scheme to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was unlawful, dealing a massive blow to Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's major election pledge on immigration before a vote expected next year.
The court unanimously rejected the government's appeal against an earlier ruling that migrants could not be sent to Rwanda because it could not be considered a safe third country.
The Rwanda scheme is the central plank of Sunak's immigration policy as he prepares to face an election next year, amid concern among some voters about the numbers of asylum seekers arriving in small boats on Britain's shores.
Announcing the court's decision, court President Robert Reed said the five judges involved agreed there were "substantial grounds for believing that asylum seekers sent to Rwanda would be at real risk of refoulement", being sent back to their country of origin.
But he left open the chance the scheme could be resurrected saying "the changes needed to eliminate the risk of refoulement may be delivered in the future, but they have not been shown to be in place now".
The ruling is a major setback to Sunak's promise to stop migrants arriving without permission on the south coast of Britain in small boats from Europe.
The original article contains 216 words, the summary contains 216 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!