Rwanda bill: Rishi Sunak ‘crystal clear’ he will ignore international law to ensure asylum seekers are deported

Published

2 years ago

January 19, 2024

admin

Rishi Sunak has insisted he will “ignore” international law in order to ensure asylum seekers get deported to Rwanda.

The prime minister managed to get his controversial policy through its latest parliamentary stage last night after days of rebellions from Conservative MPs, who want to see the bill toughened up.

But despite two rebel sources telling Sky News’s political editor Beth Rigby that ‘no confidence’ letters had now been submitted over his leadership, he insisted his party was “completely united in wanting to stop the boats”.

Mr Sunak also claimed his plan to stop small boat crossings in the Channel was “working” – despite government figures showing a further 358 asylum seekers arrived in the UK on Wednesday.

Follow live: Unusual guest takes seat at ‘utterly bizarre’ briefing

Opposition parties called out Mr Sunak for focusing on the “unworkable and expensive policy” of Rwanda instead of tackling crises in the NHS and the economy.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said the events of recent days “confirms how desperately out of touch and out of ideas this Conservative government is”, while the SNP’s Alison Thewliss said Mr Sunak’s priorities were “all wrong and the public are fed up”.

Government legal advice states that failing to comply with so-called section 39 orders from European courts – used previously to stop deportation flights taking off before additional court hearings – would be a breach of international law.

Rule 39 orders are issued by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on an exceptional basis, where there is a “real risk of serious and irreversible harm”.

Asked at today’s press conference whether he would be willing to ignore such rulings, Mr Sunak said: “I’ve been crystal clear repeatedly that I won’t let a foreign court stop us from getting flights off and getting this deterrent up and running.

“The bill specifically contains a power that makes clear that ministers are the ones that make these decisions. Parliament has supported that.

“[The bill also] makes it perfectly clear that the domestic courts should respect that decision.”

He added: “I would not have put that clause in the bill if I was not prepared to use it. So, look, if you’re asking me are there circumstances in which I will ignore rule 39, then the answer is clearly yes.”

Sunak ignores party drama to focus ire on the Lords

Amanda Akass

Political correspondent

@amandaakass

The prime minister began his press conference by attempting to dismiss all the drama and debate of the past few days – the questions about his leadership, the doubts the policy would work – with the optimistic claim “the Conservative Party has come together”.

That’s highly debatable on a morning in which rebels are claiming to have submitted ‘several’ letters of no confidence.

Rather than dwelling on the internal divisions within his party, however, he optimistically wanted to project himself as a man intent on tackling the “biggest challenges that face the country”, that he’s getting on with the job, and that his plan is working.

But the key focus was to lecture the House of Lords on the importance of passing the legislation as soon as possible – urging them to “get on board and do the right thing” and “move as quickly as we have” – stressing the “appointed” nature of members of the Upper House compared to the “elected” Commons.

He’s singling out the “opposition” in the Lords – and while it’s true that Labour categorically oppose the plan, it’s worth remembering the last time the scheme was debated there, the most stinging criticism came from the archbishops and law lords, who are non-affiliated.

While you’d expect a Conservative prime minister to focus his attacks on Labour for “sniping from the side-lines” of his policy, taking on the Lords more broadly is an odd strategy.

Some of the language used – suggesting they might “try and frustrate the will of the people” – was reminiscent of the Brexiteer condemnation of Supreme Court judges as “enemies of the people”.

Mr Sunak has found it hard enough to keep his MPs on board. He certainly doesn’t have the same power over the Lords – but he’s come out fighting.

It seems he is pre-emptively seeking to blame the Lords for any further delay to the plan too.

Repeatedly asked by journalists whether he’s sticking to his pledge to see deportation flights taking off by the spring, he was unable to repeat that previous commitment – indeed, he wasn’t even able to say planes would take off before the next general election, which seems likely to be in the Autumn.

The prime minister insisted at the end of last year that the first flights to Rwanda would take off “in the spring”.

Asked if this was still the case, Mr Sunak said: “I want to see this happen as soon as practically possible. Of course I do.”

But he threw the deadline to the House of Lords – where the bill will face its next round of scrutiny and is expected to be bitterly opposed by numerous peers.

He said: “The question is will the House of Lords understand the country’s frustration, see the will of the elected House [the Commons] and move as quickly as we have to support this legislation so we can get it on the statute books and then get flights up and running?”

Barrister and cross-bench peer Lord Carlisle described the prime minister’s press conference as “banal”, “vacuous” and “extremely repetitive”, telling Sky News: “It is plain… [Mr Sunak] doesn’t understand anything about the way the House of Lords operates. We are not there to thwart the government.”

He described the government’s course of action as a “step towards totalitarianism, saying: “When a government decides to push aside its senior courts – and here we’re talking about something that arose in the UK Supreme Court – that is certainly a first step towards a very undesirable form of government.”

Read more on Rwanda bill:
How did your MP vote?
What happens next?

The prime minister also said he was “proud of the progress” the government had made on tackling small boat crossings, and claimed his plan was “working” – albeit admitting there was “not one single silver bullet that will fix it”.

But shortly after the press conference, the latest statistics showed 358 people in eight boats had made the dangerous journey to the UK shore on Tuesday alone, bringing the total for 2024 so far to 621.

The controversial Rwanda bill is designed to send asylum seekers arriving in the UK on small boats to the African nation, and act as a deterrent to others from making Channel crossings.

Around 60 Tory MPs defied the government by voting for amendments to toughen up the law – including proposals to limit appeals and stop interventions against deportation flights from international courts.

But none of the changes were approved in the Commons, and when it came to a vote on the bill in its entirety, only 11 Conservatives – including former home secretary Suella Braverman and ex-immigration minister Robert Jenrick – chose to rebel.

In fact, several of the prominent figures who publicly argued the legislation needed to be tougher fell into line when the crunch vote came late last night – with two MPs who resigned their party posts in order to back rebel amendments walking through the yes lobby.

However, Ms Braverman, who was fired as home secretary in Mr Sunak’s last reshuffle, posted on X that the Rwanda bill would “not stop the boats” in its current form and “leaves us exposed to litigation and the Strasbourg court”.

She added: “I engaged with the government to fix it but no changes were made. I could not vote for yet another law destined to fail.”

Despite overcoming disquiet on his backbenches, Mr Sunak is not out of the woods yet, with Tory rebel sources telling Sky News’s political editor Beth Rigby that “several” MPs had submitted no confidence letters in the prime minister as a result of the internal row.

Asked by Sky News what his message was to those Tories who had voted down his bill in parliament last night, Mr Sunak said: “The plan is working right across the board. You can see that progress is being made. And our job is to stick to that plan, deliver for the country.”

Politics

Watchdog criticises ‘unprecedented’ government offer to delay local elections – as five councils confirm requests for postponement

Published

14 hours ago

December 19, 2025

admin

Watchdog criticises 'unprecedented' government offer to delay local elections – as five councils confirm requests for postponement

The elections watchdog has criticised the government for offering to consider delaying 63 local council elections next year – as five authorities confirmed to Sky News that they would ask for a postponement.

On Thursday, hours before parliament began its Christmas recess, the government revealed that councils were being sent a letter asking if they thought elections should be delayed in their areas due to challenges around delivering local government reorganisation plans.

The chief executive of the Electoral Commission, Vijay Rangarajan, hit out at the announcement on Friday, saying he was “concerned” that some elections could be postponed, with some having already been deferred from 2025.

“We are disappointed by both the timing and substance of the statement. Scheduled elections should, as a rule, go ahead as planned, and only be postponed in exceptional circumstances,” he said in a statement.

“Decisions on any postponements will not be taken until mid-January, less than three months before the scheduled May 2026 elections are due to begin.

“This uncertainty is unprecedented and will not help campaigners and administrators who need time to prepare for their important roles.”

Mr Rangarajan added: “We very much recognise the pressures on local government, but these late changes do not help administrators. Parties and candidates have already been preparing for some time, and will be understandably concerned.”

He said “capacity constraints” were not a “legitimate reason for delaying long planned elections”, which risked “affecting the legitimacy of local decision-making and damaging public confidence”.

The watchdog chief also said there was “a clear conflict of interest in asking existing councils to decide how long it will be before they are answerable to voters”.

Sky News contacted the 63 councils that have been sent the letter about potentially delaying their elections.

At the time of publication, 17 authorities had replied with their decisions, while 33 said they would make up their minds before the government’s deadline of 15 January.

Many councils told Sky News they were surprised at yesterday’s announcement, saying that they had been fully intending to hold their polls as scheduled.

They said they were now working to understand the appropriate democratic mechanism for deciding whether to request a postponement of elections. Some local authorities believe it should be a decision made by their full council, while others will leave it up to council leaders or cabinet members to decide.

Multiple councils also emphasised in statements to Sky News that the ultimate decision to delay elections lay with the government.

Reform UK has threatened legal action against ministers, accusing Labour and the Tories of “colluding” to postpone elections in order to lock other parties out of power – a sentiment echoed by Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey.

But shadow local government secretary Sir James Cleverly told Sky News this morning that the Conservative Party “wants these elections to go ahead”. Sky News understands that the national party is making that position clear to local leaders.

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government, said it was taking a “locally-led approach”, and emphasised that “councils are in the best position to judge the impact of postponements on their area”.

They added: “These are exceptional circumstances where councils have told us they’re struggling to prepare for resource-intensive elections to councils that will shortly be abolished, while also reorganising into more efficient authorities that can better serve local residents.

“There is a clear precedent for postponing local elections where local government reorganisation is in progress, as happened in 2019 and 2022.”

The five councils that confirmed they would be seeking postponements were:

Blackburn with Darwen Council (Labour);
Chorley Borough Council (Labour);
East Sussex County Council (Conservative minority);
Hastings Borough Council (Green minority);
West Sussex County Council (Conservative).

The councils in Chorley, and East and West Sussex, had decided prior to Thursday’s government announcement that they would request a delay.

An East Sussex County Council spokesperson told Sky News: “It is welcome that the government is listening to local leaders and has heard the case for focussing our resources on delivery in East Sussex, particularly with devolution and reorganisation of local government, as well as delivering services to residents, such high priorities.”

They also pointed to the cost of electing councillors for a term of just one year, and argued that it would be “more prudent for just one set of elections to be held in 2027”.

West Sussex County Council echoed those reasons and said it would cost taxpayers across the county £9m to hold elections in 2026, 2027, and 2028, as currently planned.

Chorley and Blackburn councils also cited the cost of delivering elections, and said they would prefer that money be spent on delivering the local government reorganisation and delivering services to local residents.

Meanwhile, 12 councils confirmed to Sky News that they would not be requesting delays:

Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (Liberal Democrat-Independents);
Broxbourne Borough Council (Conservative);
Colchester City Council (Labour-Liberal Democrat);
Eastleigh Borough Council (Liberal Democrat);
Essex County Council (Conservative);
Hart District Council (Liberal Democrat-Community Campaign);
Hastings Borough Council (Green minority);
Isle of Wight Council (no overall control);
Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council (Conservative);
Portsmouth City Council (Liberal Democrat minority);
Rushmoor Borough Council (Labour minority);
Southampton City Council (Labour).

Politics

Samourai co-founder claims Biden-era lawfare in calling for Trump pardon

Published

15 hours ago

December 19, 2025

admin

Samourai co-founder claims Biden-era lawfare in calling for Trump pardon

Keonne Rodriguez, who pleaded guilty to one felony count related to his role at Samourai Wallet, is calling on US President Donald Trump to pardon him, citing similar language that has been successful in previous pardon applications.

In a Thursday X post, Rodriguez said he would report to prison on Friday, where he will serve a five-year sentence for operating an illegal money transmitter. The Samourai co-founder claimed there were no “victims” to his crime, and blamed his incarceration on “lawfare perpetrated by a weaponized Biden DOJ.”

In a message tagging Trump, Rodriguez expressed hope that the US president would issue a federal pardon for him and William “Bill” Lonergan Hill, another Samourai executive who pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four years. Rodriguez blamed “activist judges” for his legal troubles, claiming he was targeted by a “political anti-innovation agenda.”

“I maintain hope that [Trump] is a fair man, a man of the people, who will see this prosecution for what it was: an anti innovation, anti american, attack on the rights and liberties of free people,” said Rodriguez. “I believe his team […] and others truly want to end the weaponization of the DOJ that the previous administration wielded so effectively […] I believe he will continue to wield that power for good and pardon me and Bill.”

Bitcoin Wallet, Law, Politics, Court, Crimes, Donald Trump — *Source:* *Keonne Rodriguez*

Rodriguez’s public plea followed Trump’s statement that he would “take a look” at a pardon for the Samourai co-founder, claiming that he had no knowledge of the case. It’s unclear whether Rodriguez filed an official application for a pardon or is relying on public statements to get the president’s attention.

Other crypto execs successfully lobbied for a Trump pardon

One of Trump’s first acts as president in January was to issue a pardon for Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht, who had been serving a life sentence for his role in creating and operating the darknet marketplace.

Former Binance CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao, who pleaded guilty to one felony in 2023 related to the exchange’s Anti-Money Laundering program, served four months in prison but also received a pardon from the president. Trump later said he “[knew] nothing about” Zhao when asked about the pardon in a November interview.

Rodriguez’s language addressing Trump mirrored comments from the White House on previous pardons. For example, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said it was a “weaponization of justice from the previous administration” when the president commuted the sentence of David Gentile, who was convicted of defrauding “thousands of individual investors in a $1.6 billion” scheme in 2024.