A new plan to ban refugees arriving in the UK by small boats from today from claiming asylum will push the boundaries of international law but will not break it, a senior Tory has said.
Home Secretary Suella Bravermanis set to publish long-promised legislation on Channel crossings on Tuesday that she has admitted “pushes the boundaries of international law”.
Ms Braverman will ask for this to apply from the moment she unveils the proposals in the Commons to avoid people smugglers “seizing on the opportunity to rush migrants across the Channel”, a government source told Sky News.
She is expected to say that under the new illegal migration bill, asylum claims from those who travel to the UK in small boats will be inadmissible.
Arrivals will be removed to a third country and banned from ever returning or claiming citizenship.
Former justice secretary Sir Robert Buckland said while Ms Braverman has said the legislation will push the boundaries of international law, it will not go as far as breaking it.
He told Sky News’ Kay Burley at Breakfast: “I’ve had assurances that the government isn’t seeking to break international law – that’s its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, the Refugee Convention.”
Sir Robert said without that it would be “a bit of a free for all for everybody to try and do their own thing” as he acknowledged other countries in Europe and around the world are also struggling with illegal immigration.
Advertisement
He added that he will be looking at the new legislation for exceptions to allow, for example, women from Iran who refuse to wear the hijab or a refugee coming from a war-torn part of the world “who clearly is coming for the right reasons to be able to seek asylum here in the UK”.
Sir Robert admitted there has been “a lot of over-promising and under-delivering” on small boat crossings but thinks Rishi Sunak has the right approach in going “one step at a time” and not just relying on UK legislation but taking action internationally “to avert the problem from reaching the Channel in the first place” such as talks with the French.
Image: Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman will unveil the plan in full on Tuesday. Pic:UK Government
Refugee charities have already described the plans as “costly and unworkable”and said they “promise nothing but more demonisation and punishment” of asylum seekers.
Writing in The Sun, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said the UK has a “proud history of welcoming those most in need”.
But he claimed that those arriving in small boats were doing so via “safe, European countries”, and were not “directly fleeing a war-torn country” or “facing an imminent threat to life”.
Former Labour home secretary Jack Straw told Sky News the government keeps coming up with “desperate measures” and said the latest plan is trying to “override all the international obligations and turn ourselves into a kind of pariah amongst western European states is not going to work anyway”.
He added: “I promise you we will in a year, 18 months time, when there’s a general election, Mr Sunak will be very, very embarrassed about the fact that the numbers might come down a bit but have not stopped.”
Government ‘pushing boundaries of international law’
Critics say the UK has “comprehensively shut down” legal routes for refugees to come to the UK.
“It will mean that those who come here on small boats can’t claim asylum here,” he added.
Despite plans such as forcibly removing asylum seekers to Rwanda being mired in legal challenges, ministers were expected to approach the limits of the European Convention on Human Rights with the new legislation.
Writing in the Daily Express, Ms Braverman admitted the plan “pushed the boundaries of international law”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:31
‘People smuggling is just another job’
Government still committed to Rwanda deportations
Under the new legislation, a duty will be placed on the home secretary to remove “as soon as reasonably practicable” anyone who arrives on a small boat, either to Rwanda or a “safe third country”.
According to The Times, this will take precedence over human rights and modern slavery claims, and there will be new powers to mass detain arrivals.
Mr Sunak spoke to Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame before unveiling his plans, and pledged to continue working with him to ensure their stalled project works.
The government has paid more than £140m to the east African nation for deportations, but no flights forcibly carrying migrants to the capital of Kigali have taken off because of legal challenges.
The PM will also meet France’s President Emmanuel Macron on Friday to discuss further cooperation that will be required to reduce boat crossings.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:16
Decmeber: Braverman defends Rwanda policy
‘Unworkable and costly’
Several Tory MPs welcomed the news that a new bill was imminent, but Labour raised doubts about the legality and feasibility of the bill and the Liberal Democrats said ministers had drawn up “another half-baked plan”.
The Immigration Services Union representing border staff also said the plans are “quite confusing” and do not seem “possible” without the Rwanda policy functioning.
Almost 3,000 migrants have made unauthorised crossings of the English Channel already this year.
Refugee Council chief executive Enver Solomon said the plans “shatter the UK’s long-standing commitment under the UN Convention to give people a fair hearing regardless of the path they have taken to reach our shores”.
“It’s unworkable, costly and won’t stop the boats,” he added.
A powerful earthquake struck off northern Japan, injuring 33 people and unleashing a tsunami.
The 7.5-magnitude quake struck at about 11.15pm local time, around 80 kilometers off the coast of Aomori prefecture.
Japan’s Fire and Disaster Management Agency said 33 people were injured, including one seriously, with most hurt by falling objects.
Image: A road is congested with cars heading for higher ground in Tomakomai City December 8, 2025 after a magnitude 7.6 earthquake. Pics: AP
A tsunami of 70cm was measured just south of Aomori, in Kuji port, Iwate prefecture, while levels of up to 50cm struck elsewhere in the region, the Japan Meteorological Agency said.
“I’ve never experienced such a big shaking,” said Nobuo Yamada, who owns a convenience store in Hachinohe, Aomori, in an interview with public broadcaster NHK.
Earlier on, the meteorological agency issued an alert for potential tsunami surges of up to 3m/10ft, with 90,000 residents ordered to evacuate.
Residents were urged by chief cabinet secretary Minoru Kihara to go to higher ground or seek shelter until advisories were lifted.
More from World
Image: People sheltering today in Kamaishi Elementary School in Kamaishi City, Miyagi Prefecture. Pic: AP
He said about 800 homes were without electricity, and that the Shinkansen bullet trains and some local lines were suspended in parts of the region.
Some 480 residents took shelter at the Hachinohe Air Base, defence minister Shinjiro Koizumi said, with 18 defence helicopters mobilised for damage assessments.
While Satoshi Kato, vice principal of a public high school in the same town, encountered traffic jams and car accidents en-route to the school as panicked people tried to flee.
Japan has recent experience of the perils of earthquakes – one in 2011 unleashed a tsunami that killed some 20,000 people and triggered a nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.
Image: The earthquake warning off the coast of Aomori Prefecture, Japan. Pic: AP
Today’s quake caused about 450 litres of water to spill from a spent fuel cooling area at the Rokkasho fuel reprocessing plant in Aomori, the Nuclear Regulation Authority said.
But water levels remained within the normal range and there was no safety concern, the authority added.
With more than a thousand troops being killed or wounded every day, there’s no sign that Donald Trump’s push to end Russia’s war in Ukraine is reducing the battles on the ground.
Quite the opposite.
Ukraine‘s military chief says Vladimir Putin is instead using the US president‘s focus on peace negotiations as “cover” while Russian soldiers attempt to seize more land.
That means much greater pressure on the Ukrainian frontline, even as Russian and American, or American and Ukrainian, or Ukrainian and European, leaders shake hands and smile for cameras before retreating behind closed doors in Moscow, Alaska, and London.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:05
This was not an upbeat meeting of Ukraine and its allies
Putin’s not counting on peace
The lack of any indicators that the Kremlin is looking to slow its military machine down also makes the risk of war spreading beyond Ukraine’s borders increasingly likely.
It takes a huge amount of effort, time, and money to put a country on a war footing as Putin has done, partially mobilising his population, allocating huge portions of government spending to the military and realigning Russia’s vast industrial base to produce weapons and ammunition.
Image: Putin has been in India to shore up support from Narendra Modi. Pic: Reuters
But when the fighting stops, it requires almost as much focus and energy to switch a society back to a peace time rhythm.
Deliberately choosing not to dial defence down once the battles cease means a nation will continue to grow its armed forces and weapons stockpiles – a sure sign that it has no intention of being peaceful and is merely having a pause before going on the attack again.
The absence of any preparations by Moscow to slow the tempo of its military operations in Ukraine – where it has more than 710,000 troops deployed along a 780-mile frontline – is perhaps an indicator that Putin is anticipating more not less war.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:07
What is Putin trying to achieve in India?
How could the war end?
What happens next in Europe will depend on the content of any peace deal on Ukraine.
An all-out Russian defeat is all but impossible to conceive without a significant change of heart by the Trump White House and a massive increase in weapons and support.
The next best result for Ukraine would be a settlement that seeks to strike a fair balance between the warring sides and their conflicting objectives.
This could be done by pausing the fighting along the current line of contact before substantive peace talks then take place, with Ukraine’s sovereignty supported by solid security guarantees from Europe and the US.
But such a move would require Europe’s NATO allies, led by the UK, France and Germany, genuinely to switch their respective militaries and populations back to a wartime footing, with a credible readiness to go to war should Moscow attempt to test their support of Ukraine.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:47
Why Ukraine’s allies may welcome Trump walking away
Will Starmer level with the public?
That does not just mean increased spending on defence at a much faster rate – in the UK at least – than is currently planned. It is also about the mindset of a country and its willingness to take some pain.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:46
New UK military technology unveiled
Worst case scenario?
The other alternative when it comes to Ukraine is a scenario that sees a sidelined Europe unable to influence the outcome of the negotiations and Kyiv forced to agree to terms that favour Moscow.
This would include the surrender of land in the Donbas that is still under Ukrainian control.
Such a deal – even if tolerated by Ukraine, which is unimaginable without serious unrest – would likely only mean a temporary halt in hostilities until Putin or whoever succeeds him decides to try again to take the rest of Ukraine, or maybe even test NATO’s borders by moving against the Baltic States.
With Trump’s new national security strategy making clear the US would only intervene to defend Europe if such a move is in America’s interests, it is no longer certain that the guarantees contained in NATO’s founding Article 5 principle – that an attack on one member state is an attack on all – can be relied upon.
In the scenario, Washington does not come to Britain’s defences, which leaves the British side with very few options to respond short of a nuclear strike.
Spotify
This content is provided by Spotify, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spotify cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spotify cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spotify cookies for this session only.
The Israeli government has been accused of intimidation, harassment and a “blatant disregard” of its obligations by the United Nations after Israeli officials raided a UN building in Jerusalem.
Police officers, along with officials from the town council, entered the East Jerusalem compound of UNRWA, the UN agency that provides services to Palestinian refugees.
Having gained entry to the compound, the officials filled vehicles with possessions, including office furniture, and raised an Israeli flag in place of the United Nations flag.
They claimed that the building had been raided because UNRWA owed around hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of local taxes.
More on Hamas
Related Topics:
However, under the UN charter, UN buildings are exempt from such taxes and are also considered “inviolable”, meaning that, rather than raiding the building, Israelhas an obligation to protect it.
Since its staff were told to leave, there have been attempts to break into the compound, which has been secured by a team of guards employed by the UN.
Sky News has been told that, when the Israeli officials arrived on Monday morning, the security guards were detained in a room within the compound.
“We didn’t let them in when they first came to the compound, but they cut the chains and the locks and took control,” said George, the head of security, who was standing outside the front gate when we arrived.
“They told my guards to stay in one room, took their phones from them, and told them they couldn’t leave.”
‘The false accusations led to this’
UNRWA’s commissioner-general, Philippe Lazzarini, said the raid was “a blatant disregard of Israel’s obligation as a United Nations Member State to protect and respect the inviolability of UN premises”.
He said that failing to cooperate with UN agencies “represent a new challenge to international law, one that creates a dangerous precedent anywhere else the UN is present across the world”.
His anger was not isolated. Outside the gates of the UNRWA compound, we met Hakam Shahwam, who used to work here as UNRWA’s chief of staff. It was, he said, “a very sad day”.
Shahwam says the claims that UNRWA was a breeding ground for Hamas had led to the raid.
He told me: “The false accusations led to this. This is a shameful day, not only for the United Nations but also for the government of Israel.
“There must be a strong protest, and a response from the international community. This is unacceptable.”
The Israeli government remains adamant that its criticism of UNRWA is justified.
When I asked Shosh Bedrosian, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, about the raid, she said: “UNRWA is a stain on the United Nations.”
She added: “It is time for UNRWA to be dismantled. It is not part of the solution for Gaza, it is part of the problem.”
She did not comment on the legality of the raid, or on Israel’s ongoing commitment to the UN Charter.