Rwanda: What is the government policy and why has it ended up in the courts?

Published

1 year ago

November 15, 2023

admin

The government’s flagship immigration policy, known as the Rwanda plan, is hanging in the balance this morning as ministers wait for the judgement of the highest court in the land.

But what is the scheme? Why is it so controversial? And how has it ended up in the judicial system?

The Rwanda plan was first proposed by Boris Johnson back in April 2022 as the government came under increasing pressure to tackle the growing number of small boats crossing the Channel.

The then-prime minister outlined his policy that would see anyone arriving in the country illegally deported to the east African nation.

Those who successfully applied for refugee status when there would then be given the right to remain in Rwanda – not return to the UK.

But if their claim was unsuccessful, they could then be removed to their country of origin.

The deal, signed by the home secretary at the time, Priti Patel, and her Rwandan counterpart, cost the government £120m.

Mr Johnson said it would help deter people from making the dangerous crossing to the UK and tackle the “barbaric trade in human misery” caused by people traffickers.

Opposition parties and charities deemed the plan “cruel and nasty”, and claimed the policy would break international human rights laws.

There were even reports that King Charles – then the Prince of Wales – was a critic of the scheme.

But the government pushed ahead, with the first flight to Kigali set to take off in June 2022.

Come the day, there were only seven asylum seekers on board the plane.

Numerous court cases were launched by refugee charities, as well as the Public and Commercial Services union, ahead of take off, calling the policy “inhumane” and demanding the deportations were stopped.

Protesters also tried to stop the flight, locking themselves together with metal pipes and blockading exits of the Colnbrook Immigration Removal Centre at Heathrow, where the migrants were believed to be held.

However, English judges ruled the seven people could be deported, saying there had been an “assurance” from government that if the policy was found to be unlawful at a later stage, steps would be taken to bring back any migrants.

This didn’t stop further last minute legal challenges to prevent take off though.

In the end, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) issued injunctions to halt the deportations altogether, leaving the plane grounded on a Ministry of Defence runway.

The government said it would appeal against the ruling, with Tory MPs angered that a European court could overrule the decision of English judges.

But campaigners said it showed the “inhumanity” of the plan for the human rights watchdog to intervene.

In the months that followed, there was a change in government, with Liz Truss taking the keys to Number 10 and Suella Braverman heading up the Home Office.

However, both women stood by the Rwanda plan and, even when Ms Truss was ousted weeks later, her successor Rishi Sunak also gave it his backing.

The ruling of the ECHR – which ensures the European Human Rights Convention is adhered to – was still fresh in the minds of Tory backbenchers, as they saw it as holding up the policy they believed would stop the boats.

And it led to a number of calls for the UK to leave the convention, though they appeared to remain in the minority.

The plan itself headed back to the courts as campaigners tried a new tactic to stop it in its tracks, launching a judicial review on the Home Office’s assessment of Rwanda as a safe third country.

The government doubled down on its belief in the scheme – with Ms Braverman telling the Conservative Party conference it was her “dream” to see flights take off.

And come December of 2022, that dream looked closer to reality, as the High Court ruled in the favour of ministers, saying the scheme did not breach either the UN’s Refugee Convention or human rights laws, and that Rwanda was a “safe third country” for migrants to be sent to.

But the legal battle was far from over.

Campaigners were then allowed to appeal the ruling in the Court of Appeal, and the three sitting judges overturned the High Court’s decision.

Lord Chief Justice Lord Burnett concluded Rwanda was not a safe place for people to be housed while their asylum claims were processed, adding: “The result is that the High Court’s decision that Rwanda was a safe third country is reversed, and unless and until the deficiencies in its asylum process are corrected, removal of asylum seekers will be unlawful.”

The government was outraged, with the prime minister saying he “fundamentally disagreed” with the ruling, and would do “whatever is necessary” to get the removal flights going.

The anger of Ms Braverman and her right wing supporters also grew, with further demands to leave the ECHR, and others calling for the human rights convention to be overhauled.

The government got approval to appeal that ruling and, as a result, it was sent to the Supreme Court.

Those judges will announce their decision today – and if they stick by the ruling of the Court of Appeal, that would signal the end of the government’s long fought for, but extremely controversial, Rwanda scheme.

Follow the Supreme Court ruling at news.sky.com, on the app, or on Sky News from 10am

Politics

‘I put most of my wealth into Bitcoin, so I am fully committed’ — RFK

Published

5 hours ago

November 17, 2024

admin

<div>'I put most of my wealth into Bitcoin, so I am fully committed' — RFK</div>

RFK Jr. has been a longtime Bitcoin advocate, praising its power to transmute currency inflation as US government debt tops $36 trillion.

Politics

Senator Lummis says Treasury should convert gold for Bitcoin reserve

Published

7 hours ago

November 17, 2024

admin

Senator Lummis says Treasury should convert gold for Bitcoin reserve

The United States government has the highest gold reserves in the world, with over 8,000 tons of the precious metal on its balance sheet.

Politics

What can Rio 2024 really achieve in Biden’s final act, before the new show rolls into town?

Published

9 hours ago

November 17, 2024

admin

What can Rio 2024 really achieve in Biden's final act, before the new show rolls into town?

Climate change, the crisis in the Middle East, the continuing war in Ukraine, combating global poverty.

All of these are critical issues for Britain and beyond; all of them up for discussions at the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro this week, and all of them very much in limbo as the world awaits the arrival of president-elect Donald Trump to the White House.

Because while US President Joe Biden used Nato, the G7 and the G20, as forums to try to find consensus on some of the most pressing issues facing the West, his successor is likely to take a rather different approach. And that begs the question going into Rio 2024 about what can really be achieved in Mr Biden’s final act before the new show rolls into town.

On the flight over to Rio de Janeiro, our prime minister acted as a leader all too aware of it as he implored fellow leaders to “shore up support for Ukraine” even as the consensus around standing united against Vladimir Putin appears to be fracturing and the Russian president looks emboldened.

“We need to double down on shoring up our support for Ukraine and that’s top of my agenda for the G20,” he told us in the huddle on the plane. “There’s got to be full support for as long as it takes.”

But the election of Mr Trump to the White House is already shifting that narrative, with the incoming president clear he’s going to end the war. His new secretary of state previously voted against pouring more military aid into the embattled country.

Mr Trump has yet to say how he intends to end this war, but allies are already blinking. In recent days, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has spoken with Mr Putin for the first time in two years to the dismay of the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who described the call as “opening Pandora’s Box”.

Sir Keir for his part says he has “no plans’ to speak to Putin as the 1,000th day of this conflict comes into view. But as unity amongst allies in isolating Mr Putin appears to be fracturing, the Russian leader is emboldened: on Saturday night Moscow launched one of the largest air attacks on Ukraine yet.

All of this is a reminder of the massive implications, be it on trade or global conflicts, that a Trump White House will have, and the world will be watching to see how much ‘Trump proofing’ allies look to embark upon in the coming days in Rio, be that trying to strike up economic ties with countries such as China or offering more practical help for Ukraine.

Both Sir Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron want to use this summit to persuade Mr Biden to allow Mr Zelenskyy to fire Storm Shadow missiles deep into Russian territory, having failed to win this argument with the president during their meeting at the White House in mid-September. Starmer has previously said it should be up to Ukraine how it uses weapons supplied by allies, as long as it remains within international law and for the purposes of defence.

“I am going to make shoring up support for Ukraine top of my agenda as we go into the G20,” said Sir Keir when asked about pressing for the use of such weaponry.

“I think it’s important we double down and give Ukraine the support that it needs for as long as it needs it. Obviously, I’m not going to get into discussing capabilities. You wouldn’t expect me to do that.”

Ukraine war latest: Russia sending ‘clear message to Washington’

But even as allies try to persuade the outgoing president on one issue where consensus is breaking down, the prospect of the newcomer is creating other waves on climate change and taxation too. Argentine President Javier Milei, a close ally of Trump, is threatening to block a joint communique set to be endorsed by G20 leaders over opposition to the taxation of the super-rich, while consensus on climate finance is also struggling to find common ground, according to the Financial Times.

Where the prime minister has found common ground with Mr Trump is on their respective domestic priorities: economic growth and border control.

So you will be hearing a lot from the prime minister over the next couple of days about tie-ups and talks with big economic partners – be that China, Brazil or Indonesia – as Starmer pursues his growth agenda, and tackling small boats, with the government drawing up plans for a series of “Italian-style” deals with several countries in an attempt to stop 1000s of illegal migrants from making the journey to the UK.

Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has struck financial deals with Tunisia and Libya to get them to do more to stop small-boat crossings, with some success and now the UK is in talks with Kurdistan, semi-autonomous region in Iraq, Turkey and Vietnam over “cooperation and security deals” which No 10 hope to sign next year.

The prime minister refused on Sunday to comment on specific deals as he stressed that tackling the small boats crisis would come from a combination of going after the smuggling gangs, trying to “stop people leaving in the first place” and returning illegal migrants where possible.

“I don’t think this is an area where we should just do one thing. We have got to do everything that we can,” he said, stressing that the government had returned 9,400 people since coming into office.

But with the British economy’s rebound from recession slowing down sharply in the third quarter of the year, and small boat crossings already at a record 32,947, the Prime Minister has a hugely difficult task.

Team Trump: Who is in, and who is out?

Add the incoming Trump presidency into the mix and his challenges are likely to be greater still when it comes to crucial issues from Ukraine to climate change, and global trade. But what Trump has given him at least is greater clarity on what he needs to do to try to buck the political headwinds from the US to the continent, and win another term as a centre left incumbent.