Connect with us

Published

on

Rishi Sunak has said he will introduce emergency legislation to make sure his Rwanda plan is not blocked again – and insisted “flights will be heading off in the spring as planned”.

After the Supreme Court ruled the flagship asylum policy is unlawful, the prime minister said he had been working on a new international treaty with the East African nation to address the judges’ concerns and ensure it is “safe”.

He said: “This will provide a guarantee in law that those who are relocated from the UK to Rwanda will be protected against removal from Rwanda and it will make clear that we will bring back anyone if ordered to do so by a court.

“We will finalise this treaty in light of today’s judgment and ratify it without delay.”

Politics latest: Labour frontbencher resigns over Starmer’s Gaza stance

Mr Sunak insisted the legislation would “end the merry-go-round” of legal challenges that have stopped flights from taking off since the controversial plan was announced in April last year.

The policy would see anyone arriving in the UK by unauthorised means deported to Rwanda to claim asylum there – not the UK.

“We need to end the merry-go-round,” Mr Sunak told a Downing Street news conference.

“I said I was going to fundamentally change our country, and I meant it.”

The PM said he would be taking the “extraordinary step of introducing emergency legislation”, which will “enable parliament to confirm that with our new treaty, Rwanda is safe”.

But he also acknowledged that even if domestic laws are changed, the government could still face legal challenges from the European Court of Human Rights and vowed: “I will not allow a foreign court to block these flights.”

“If the Strasbourg court chooses to intervene against the express wishes of parliament, I am prepared to do what is necessary to get flights off,” he said.

Read more:
Why Sunak’s promise looks extremely hard to keep | Beth Rigby analysis
Explainer – how did the government policy end up in the courts?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Supreme Court rules Rwanda plan unlawful

In its ruling on Wednesday, the UK’s highest court said refugees sent to Rwanda would be at “real risk” of being returned to their country of origin, whether their grounds to claim asylum were justified or not – breaching international law.

It has fuelled calls from some Tory MPs to pull the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in order to push forward with the plan – something Mr Sunak has so far resisted doing.

An eleventh-hour injunction from the ECHR stopped the first scheduled flights from taking off to Rwanda’s capital Kigali last June, and no one has been deported since.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Asylum seekers celebrate Rwanda verdict

The Supreme Court judges said it is not only the ECHR which is relevant to their ruling, pointing out that the UK is signed up “other international treaties which also prohibit the return of asylum seekers to their countries of origin without a proper examination of their claims”.

What happens now?


Sam Coates

Sam Coates

Deputy political editor

@SamCoatesSky

The prime minister set out a two part plan – first, putting the Rwanda agreement into a treaty, ensuring once asylum seekers are taken to the country, they will stay there.

But it was the second bit that we didn’t know was coming that could prove controversial – the emergency legislation.

It sounds as if the PM is planning to pass a law that declares Rwanda a ‘safe’ country and that cannot be challenged in the UK courts on the basis of the European Human Rights Convention and other international human rights laws.

In effect, the UK courts would have to accept that judgment as parliament is sovereign. So, providing this legislation doesn’t get gummed up in the House of Lords, that’s the domestic courts sorted.

However, that legislation would not override the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

An asylum seeker would be able to take their claim to that court, which would then make its own judgment on whether Rwanda is ‘safe’, as the UK government would have declared.

Even before they have ruled, the Strasbourg court could issue a “rule 39” order to block flights. It sounds from the news conference as if Sunak would simply ignore that if it came again. This means there’s a much higher chance flights to Rwanda might be able to take off.

A judgment from the Strasbourg court that Rwanda is not, in fact, a safe country would in time likely set up a huge political and legal battle for the government.

Would they simply ignore the ruling and send flights to Rwanda anyway? Is the government happy to be in breach of the European Convention of Human Rights? Would we be expelled or leave?

Big questions, but perhaps ones not settled this side of an election. Which might just be the point.

Mr Sunak was not clear about how he thinks he can circumvent human rights laws and international conventions.

However he said he was confident that his new plan will work.

The PM said he is “delivering” on his pledge to stop the boats, and the new treaty is “ready to go” to reassure the courts.

“We will clear the remaining barriers and flights will be heading off in the spring as planned,” he added.

The news conference came shortly after new snap polling from YouGov show most people believe the policy should now be scrapped.

However, some Tory MPs want Mr Sunak to go further and disapply human rights laws so the scheme can go ahead.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Rwanda ruling ‘massive blow’ to PM

Suella Braverman, who was sacked as home secretary on Monday, has called for emergency legislation to “block off the ECHR and other routes of legal challenge”.

Conservative Party deputy chairman Lee Anderson said the government should “ignore the laws” and send migrants back the same day they arrive in the UK.

The New Conservatives, a right-wing pressure group of MPs, said Mr Sunak’s new legislation “must disapply the Human Rights Act and give effect to the policy *notwithstanding* the ECHR and Refugee Convention”.

“It must restate the power of Govt to disregard interim rulings from Strasbourg,” they posted on X.

Britain is expected to pay Rwanda more money for the new treaty, having already handed over £140m under the plans that have seen not one asylum seeker removed since it was announced.

Earlier, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer demanded an apology to the nation from Mr Sunak for wasting millions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash on the “ridiculous, pathetic spectacle”.

Continue Reading

Politics

Tariff turmoil sparks $1 billion in liquidations: CoinGlass

Published

on

By

Tariff turmoil sparks  billion in liquidations: CoinGlass

According to data from CoinGlass, altcoins like SOL, XRP and ADA saw more than $150 million in liquidations on March 4.

Continue Reading

Politics

White House will support rescinding DeFi broker rule: David Sacks

Published

on

By

White House will support rescinding DeFi broker rule: David Sacks

Donald Trump’s advisers said they would recommend that the president sign a resolution repealing the IRS rule into law if passed by the House and Senate.

Continue Reading

Politics

JD Vance denies insulting British troops over ‘random country’ jibe

Published

on

By

JD Vance denies insulting British troops over 'random country' jibe

JD Vance has hit back at criticism after saying a potential peacekeeping force in Ukraine would be “20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”.

The US vice president was accused of “disrespecting” British forces who served alongside the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, with a former veterans minister branding him a “clown” who needs to “check his privilege”.

Politics latest: Trump stopping aid to Ukraine is ‘profoundly worrying’

Although the UK and France are the only countries to have pledged troops to a potential peacekeeping force, Mr Vance said the suggestion he was referring to those two allies is “absurdly dishonest”.

“I don’t even mention the UK or France in the clip, both of whom have fought bravely alongside the US over the last 20 years, and beyond,” he said in a post on X.

“There are many countries who are volunteering (privately or publicly) support who have neither the battlefield experience nor the military equipment to do anything meaningful.”

Mr Vance made the initial comments to Fox News on Tuesday, saying the only security guarantee Donald Trump will provide for Ukraine is a minerals deal.

He said: “The president knows that if you want real US security guarantees, if you want to actually ensure that Vladimir Putin does not invade Ukraine again, the very best security guarantee is to give Americans economic upside in the future of Ukraine.

“That is a way better security guarantee than 20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years.”

Several British politicians interpreted this as a dig at the UK and France, who have led the idea of a “coalition of the willing” to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire.

James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, accused Mr Vance of “ignoring the service and sacrifice” of personnel from the two countries that fought in Afghanistan after 9/11.

He said that is the only time NATO’s Article 5 has been invoked, which holds that members of the alliance will come to the defence of an ally under attack.

He added: “Britain and France came to their aid deploying 1,000s of personnel to Afghanistan, including numerous parliamentary colleagues, past & present. It’s deeply disrespectful to ignore such service & sacrifice.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump pauses military aid to Ukraine – what now?

Former Tory veterans minister Johnny Mercer called Mr Vance a “clown” who “needs to check his privilege”.

Helen Maguire, the Lib Dem’s defence spokesperson who also served in the army before her career in politics, accused Mr Trump’s deputy of “erasing the hundreds of British troops who gave their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan from history”.

She said: “Six of my own regiment, the Royal Military Police, didn’t return home from Iraq. This is a sinister attempt to deny that reality. Vance has demeaned his office.”

Speaking after Mr Vance clarified his remarks, a Downing Street spokesperson said the US vice president was “talking about other countries” when asked if he should apologise.

They added Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer “is full of admiration for British troops who fought alongside the US and others in wars and their courage and bravery”.

Read more:
Trump pauses US military aid to Ukraine
Trump confirms Mexico and Canada tariffs

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch told GB News “a lot of people are getting carried away”.

“They’re saying loads of things and getting quite animated, let’s keep cool heads,” she said.

“I believe President Trump and JD Vance want peace, they’re looking after their national interest, we need to do so as well.”

It is not the first time Mr Vance has riled the UK, after previously attacking it over free speech and saying the UK is “Islamist under Labour”.

A history of JD Vance riling the UK

JD Vance seems to save some of his most incendiary comments about other countries for the UK.

Donald Trump’s vice president has regularly caused outrage among MPs, most recently with what many saw as a perceived dig at British troops.

During last year’s presidential election campaign, Mr Vance suggested Labour’s victory here made Britain the “first truly Islamist country” with nuclear weapons.

Recalling a conversation about who might be “the first truly Islamist country that will get a nuclear weapon”, he said rather than it being somewhere like Iran, he settled on the UK “since Labour just took over”.

Mr Vance also used a landmark speech at the Munich Security Conference to criticise the UK and Europe over free speech, saying there had been a “backslide away from conscience rights” that had put “basic liberties of religious Britons, in particular, in the crosshairs”.

He doubled down on those remarks during Sir Keir Starmer’s meeting with Donald Trump in the Oval Office last week, claiming the government’s stance is something that affects US tech companies and, therefore, American citizens.

Sir Keir interjected, saying “we’ve had free speech for a very long time, it will last a long time, and we are very proud of that”.

The row comes after the Trump administration paused military aid to Ukraine following an extraordinary showdown between the US President and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

The falling out has thrown into jeopardy the prospect of a minerals deal, which would give the US access to Ukraine’s deposits of rare earth minerals.

Mr Trump has suggested this would deter Russia from invading Ukraine again if a peace deal is struck – but Sir Keir said yesterday that it would not be enough on its own.

The prime minister told MPs on Monday that Britain must “lead from the front” on supporting Ukraine and Europe must “do the heavy lifting to support peace on our continent”.

However, he said “to succeed, this effort must also have strong US backing”.

Continue Reading

Trending