PM facing further rebellions over Rwanda – as backbench Tories call for Downing Street talks

Published

2 years ago

January 17, 2024

admin

The prime minister could be facing further rebellions from his backbenchers today as MPs return to the Commons to carry on debating the Rwanda bill.

The government insists the proposed legislation – aimed at deterring asylum seekers from crossing the Channel in small boats – is the toughest immigration law in history and will revive the scheme after the UK’s Supreme Court ruled it unlawful late last year.

But some Conservative MPs on the right of the party claim it does not go far enough, pushing for harder measures to limit appeals from asylum seekers and to block any rulings from international courts.

Politics live:
‘Unity of purpose’ in Tory party, claims minister

Last night, two deputy chairmen of the Tory party and one ministerial aide quit their posts in order to back rebel amendments put forward by veteran MP Sir Bill Cash and former immigration minister Robert Jenrick.

While the amendments were rejected overall by MPs, 60 Conservatives voted in defiance of the government – with further backbench proposals being tabled today.

An overall vote on the bill is also scheduled for this evening, and if around 30 Conservatives vote against it, the legislation could fall.

Rishi Sunak will also face the added pressure of his weekly grilling at Prime Minister’s Questions before the debate even begins.

Former minister Jonathan Gullis joined Mr Jenrick and others in saying he was “prepared” to vote down the Rwanda bill if it remained unamended.

But he told Sky News he hoped to “get into 10 Downing Street today” to “talk it out and find a way forward so we can avoid colleagues choosing to either abstain or go in the opposite lobby”.

Mr Gullis added: “We firmly believe that the prime minister should see the overwhelming support on his backbenches for wanting to toughen this legislation.

“I hope we can get into 10 Downing Street, we can negotiate this, and then we can come to a place where we can tell all colleagues it’s time to go through the aye lobby.”

Asked if they were going to invite the rebels in for talks, a Number 10 source said they wouldn’t comment on private conversations, but “engagement is continuing”.

Illegal immigration minister Michael Tomlinson told Sky News he would be “listening respectfully to colleagues” and he “completely understands” their concerns.

He insisted all the MPs in his party had a “unity of purpose” and were “determined” for the Rwanda bill to be a success, adding this morning: “If you listened and heard and saw what [the rebels] said, they are determined that this policy works.

“They support the prime minister in his aim to stop the boats. He is the one who has the plan to stop the boats.”

The minister continued: “We will see more robust debate in the chamber of the House of Commons this afternoon.

“But I know how my colleagues feel… their concerns are my concerns. And I’m determined that we can get this legislation through, that we can stop the boats, because we have a plan to do that.”

Speaking to reporters, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt also tried to calm the mood, saying: “We are united in the Conservative Party in our belief we need to solve this problem [of Channel crossings].

“Of course, we have lively debates inside the party about how to deliver the Rwanda policy.

“But the big picture is there’s only one major party in British politics that wants to make Rwanda work. That’s the Conservative Party.”

However, Labour’s shadow culture secretary, Thangam Debbonaire, said the internal Tory row showed the “incredibly weak leadership” of Mr Sunak, who couldn’t get his MPs to vote as one last night.

“His plan keeps stumbling,” she told Sky News. “It literally seems to be his only policy at the moment.

“But he isn’t stopping the boats. Nearly 30,000 people came over on small boats last year. He pledged that it would stop in 2023. That’s not stopping it.”

Asked if there would definitely be a vote on the overall bill amid rumours Number 10 could pull it rather than face defeat, Mr Tomlinson focused on procedure – explaining how the parliamentary timetable would allow the vote if the bill remained unamended.

There has also been no hint that Mr Sunak is willing to concede to the rebel demands as of yet, as not only does the government believe it would risk Rwanda pulling out of the scheme, but Conservatives from the more centrist wing of the party have threatened their own rebellion if the law goes too far.

Politics

Japan wrote the first stablecoin rulebook — so why is the US pulling ahead?

Published

15 mins ago

August 26, 2025

admin

Japan wrote the first stablecoin rulebook — so why is the US pulling ahead?

“Japan prizes systemic stability above innovation speed, while the US is signaling a bigger market-opening play,” said Startale Group’s Takashi Tezuka.

Politics

Binance and Tether are watching Korea closely: Here’s why

Published

3 hours ago

August 26, 2025

admin

Binance and Tether are watching Korea closely: Here’s why

Binance and Tether are eyeing Korea’s stablecoin rules that may boost coins pegged to the South Korean won or strengthen USD dominance.

Politics

Nigel Farage’s deportation plan relies on these conditions – legal expert explains if it could work

Published

5 hours ago

August 26, 2025

admin

Nigel Farage's deportation plan relies on these conditions - legal expert explains if it could work

Explaining how they plan to tackle what they described as illegal migration, Nigel Farage and his Reform UK colleague Zia Yusuf were happy to disclose some of the finer details – how much money migrants would be offered to leave and what punishments they would receive if they returned.

But the bigger picture was less clear.

How would Reform win a Commons majority, at least another 320 seats, in four years’ time – or sooner if, as Mr Farage implied, Labour was forced to call an early election?

How would his party win an election at all if, as its leader suggested, other parties began to adopt his policies?

Politics latest: Starmer ‘angry’ about Farage’s language on migrant hotels

Highly detailed legislation would be needed – what Mr Farage calls his Illegal Migration (Mass Deportation) Bill.

But Reform would not have a majority in the House of Lords and, given the responsibilities of the upper house to scrutinise legislation in detail, it could take a year or more from the date of an election for his bill to become law.

Reform’s four-page policy document says the legislation would have to disapply:

• The United Nations refugee convention of 1951, extended in 1967, which says people who have a well-founded fear of persecution must not be sent back to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom

• The United Nations convention against torture, whose signatories agree not expel, return or extradite anyone to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe the returned person would be in danger of being tortured

• The Council of Europe anti-trafficking convention, which requires states to provide assistance for victims

According to the policy document, derogation from these treaties is “justified under the Vienna Convention doctrine of state necessity”.

That’s odd, because there’s no mention of necessity in the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties – and because member states can already “denounce” (leave) the three treaties by giving notice.

It would take up to a year – but so would the legislation. Only six months’ notice would be needed to leave the European Convention on Human Rights, another of Reform’s objectives.

Mr Farage acknowledged that other European states were having to cope with an influx of migrants. Why weren’t those countries trying to give up their international obligations?

His answer was to blame UK judges for applying the law. Once his legislation had been passed, Mr Farage promised, there would be nothing the courts could do to stop people being deported to countries that would take them. His British Bill of Rights would make that clear.

Courts will certainly give effect to the will of parliament as expressed in legislation. But the meaning of that legislation is for the judiciary to decide. Did parliament really intend to send migrants back to countries where they are likely to face torture or death, the judges may be asking themselves in the years to come.

They will answer questions such as that by examining the common law that Mr Farage so much admires – the wisdom expressed in past decisions that have not been superseded by legislation. He cannot be confident that the courts will see the problem in quite the same way that he does.