Connect with us

Published

on

Robert Jenrick says he is “prepared” to vote against the Rwanda bill if the government does not adopt “robust” changes to the proposed legislation.

Two days of debate on the proposed law has begun in in the Commons, with the legislation aiming to deter asylum seekers from coming to the UK via small boat crossings.

Rishi Sunak has said the new bill, which includes clauses to define Rwanda as a “safe country” and reduces the ability for people to appeal, answers the concerns of the the UK Supreme Court – which ruled the plan unlawful – while also ensuring deportations will take place.

Politics live: Johnson tells PM to accept rebel amendments

A Boeing 767 aircraft at MoD Boscombe Down, near Salisbury, which is believed to be the plane set to take asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda. Picture date: Tuesday June 14, 2022.
Image:
No migrants have been flown to Rwanda so far

But many on the right of the party – including Mr Jenrick, who resigned as immigration minister over the issue – want the prime minister to toughen up the legislation with a raft of amendments, including one that would block injunctions on flights taking off.

Make this move, however, and Mr Sunak risks upsetting the centrist wing of his party, with the One Nation faction already concerned the bill goes too far from the UK’s international obligations.

Speaking to Sky News’s political editor Beth Rigby, Mr Jenrick said he did not want to get to the “situation” where he would have to rebel against the government, but added: “I am prepared to vote against the bill… because this bill doesn’t work, and I do believe that a better bill is possible.

More on Conservatives

“So the government has a choice. It can either accept my amendments… or it can bring back a new and improved bill, and it could do that within a matter of days because we know the shape of that bill.”

He added: “The opportunity here is immense. Let’s not waste it by creating a scheme that is like a bucket riddled with holes.”

Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge

Politics Hub with Sophy Ridge

Sky News Monday to Thursday at 7pm.
Watch live on Sky channel 501, Freeview 233, Virgin 602, the Sky News website and app or YouTube.

Tap here for more

Jenrick: ‘Tens of thousands more’ will come if bill not ‘fixed’

The former immigration minister said he “didn’t accept” that if the bill failed in the Commons, Mr Sunak’s premiership would be in crisis – despite two deputy Tory chairmen now risking the sack to vote for the rebel amendments.

“This isn’t about the prime minister or his leadership of the Conservative Party,” Mr Jenrick said. “This is about fixing one of the biggest problems facing not just this country, but countries all over the world.

“And as I’ve set out in great detail since I resigned on principle last month, if we don’t fix this problem, we’ll see tens of thousands more people coming to our country.

“I don’t want to see the bill either fail or proceed in its current state. Neither is a satisfactory outcome. But I do know that a better bill is possible and the ball is in the government’s court here.”

He added: “The point is that there’s no point having a moment of unity in passing a bill that doesn’t work – that’s an illusion.

“What matters is whether it works. And if we’re celebrating this week, but in August there are still thousands of people coming across in small boats, no one will remember the events of this week.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

PM claims Tories are ‘completely united’ in wanting to stop the boats

Govt ‘risks clogging up the courts’

Sky News understands the government still doesn’t plan to accept any of the amendments from right-wing MPs.

However, shortly before the debate began – and in an attempt to appease rebels – Justice Secretary Alex Chalk confirmed 25 hearing rooms had been prepared and more than 100 additional staff had been recruited to help speed up appeals and deportations.

But Mr Jenrick said: “Adding more judges into the mix simply accepts my central argument that there will be an absolute cascade of individual claims from migrants as they arrive into the country and [that] will clog up the courts.

“It will delay things and the scheme will become completely inoperable.”

Robert Jenrik during the debate on the Rwanda bill
Image:
Robert Jenrik during a debate on the Rwanda bill

The former minister also rejected the government’s argument that any strengthening of the law would lead to the Rwandan government pulling out of the scheme altogether, rather than risk being linked with breaches of international law.

“It is quite an implausible suggestion from the government, which was raised at the 11th hour,” he said.

“I think it’s a highly convenient argument… you weren’t born yesterday, neither was I. I don’t think that is going to wash with parliamentary colleagues.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Would Labour support Rwanda plan?

Mr Jenrick continued: “All we care about is what works. It is absolutely critical for the country not to talk about the government, but to actually get the Rwanda scheme up and running.

“Illegal migration is doing untold damage to our country. I won’t allow that to continue.

“I said, as did the prime minister, that we would do whatever it takes. And the bill before parliament this week is not that.

“That is why we need to amend it, to toughen it and to ensure those flights do truly get off to Rwanda.”

Today’s debate will last for six hours, with a further six hours expected on Wednesday.

Continue Reading

Politics

Crypto trader ups MEXC ‘bounty’ to $2.5M after in-person KYC request

Published

on

By

Crypto trader ups MEXC ‘bounty’ to .5M after in-person KYC request

Crypto trader ups MEXC ‘bounty’ to .5M after in-person KYC request

The “White Whale” increased his social media pressure campaign to $2.5 million after claiming that MEXC requested an in-person KYC verification in Malaysia.

Continue Reading

Politics

US appeals time served sentences for HashFlare Ponzi schemers

Published

on

By

US appeals time served sentences for HashFlare Ponzi schemers

US appeals time served sentences for HashFlare Ponzi schemers

Prosecutors appealed the sentences given to HashFlare founders Sergei Potapenko and Ivan Turõgin, after arguing the pair should get 10 years in prison.

Continue Reading

Politics

Nigel Farage has a new ‘leave’ campaign – here’s how it could work and how it might impact you

Published

on

By

Nigel Farage has a new 'leave' campaign - here's how it could work and how it might impact you

Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.

The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.

In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.

Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.

What is the ECHR?

On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.

It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.

The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.

The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.

Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.

Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
Image:
Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR

To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.

There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).

The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.

ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.

Read more:
Why Farage’s small boats plan is not actually about policy
Legal expert explains if Farage deportation plan would work

The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
Image:
The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP

How is it actually used?

The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.

The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.

The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.

An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.

All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.

The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.

Read more: Asylum seekers in charts and numbers

Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
Image:
Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP

How could the UK leave?

A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.

At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.

The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.

Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?

Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.

It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.

The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.

Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
Image:
Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR

How would the UK’s human rights protections change?

Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.

For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.

Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.

Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.

The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.

Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
Image:
Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA

How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.

Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.

He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.

Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.

Continue Reading

Trending