Rishi has a lot at stake on flights taking off to Rwanda before the election. Despite being reluctant to push for the plan during his leadership campaign in the first place, he’s made it his stated mission to “stop the boats” and get the Safety of Rwanda Bill passed through the Lords. Rumour has it that his latest plan to do this is to pivot towards leaving the European Court of Human Rights…
The pitch is being rolled, and whips are said to be set to sound out MPs over the weekend. Perhaps encouraged by the reaction to The Sun’s splash that Sunak said he’ll “quit the Euro court” if that’s what it takes got the ball rolling. Guido would note however that it was the Supreme Court that ruled against the government and declared Rwanda “unsafe“, not the ECHR, so quite how leaving the ECHR will immediately help to “Stop the Boats” isn’t clear. A cynic might wonder if it is all pantomime for political wedge purposes against a “leftie lawyer”?
It was only a matter of time until the SNP followed Labour’s footsteps in asking some rather silly questions. This time, SNP MP Patrick Grady clearly thought he was asking tough questions when probing Rishi Sunak as to why he thought the European Court of Human Rights was a foreign court. Sunak’s answer didn’t need to be long…
Perhaps not the greatest use of a written question to the Prime Minister…
Last night hardliners on the Rwanda bill tabled their first amendments aiming to iron out “loopholes which could mean it’s held up in the courts“. The amendments are supported by over 30 MPs to the Tory right before the bill goes to committee stage on the 16th and 17th of the month. Meanwhile Robert Buckland wants to table some wet amendments of his own…
- An amendment from Bill Cash adding a notwithstanding clause which disapplies previous domestic acts, legacy EU legislation, and international law.
- 3 amendments from Jenrick reducing individuals’ ability to block or delay their own removal.
- 8 amendments from Jenrick disapplying the Human Rights Act for relevant sections of the bill and the Illegal Migration Act 2023 for Rwanda removals.
- 2 amendments from Jenrick ensuring that Order 39 injunctions from the ECHR (also known as pyjama injunctions) to ground planes can be ignored.
- An amendment from Jenrick limiting courts’ ability to review removal decisions.
Miriam Cates this morning said it’s the “third time lucky we hope – that’s why we’ve laid these amendments“. Jenrick is claiming he wants to “win the argument” and won’t say whether he will vote against the bill at the third reading, though he will “consider” it. In the meantime at the One Nation Conservatives New Year drinks last night Matt Warman warned: “We know that the government is at its best when its bravest legislation is on the right side of international law, unamended“. Sunak still refuses to specify whether he would ignore an Order 39 injunction. Recipe for a blow-up…
See a full list of the MPs who have signed the amendments below:
In a dramatic statement in the Commons, the ousted former Home Secretary Suella Braverman has laid out her Rwanda position. She said that we don’t actually have to leave the ECHR, even though she favours it – emergency legislation can be enacted, but has to meet the following five tests:
- Rwanda scheme must meet Supreme Court’s concerns about safety.
- Flights before next election by using notwithstanding clauses.
- Remedy deficiencies in HRA to get people out faster.
- Means for detention of illegal arrivals until they are removed – using “nightingale-style detention centres“.
- Parliament needs to sit over Christmas to get this done.
Braverman finished by saying “electoral oblivion” awaits the Tories if another failing bill is put forward. The gauntlet is thrown down…
There is growing momentum on the Tory benches to push for leaving the European Convention of Human Rights if Strasbourg courts block Rwanda deportation flights. According to the Telegraph, up to a third of the Cabinet are preparing to support the move if the flights remain grounded, with Suella Braverman already publicly backing it. If the government’s Supreme Court case fails, this could all come to a head…
Yesterday Immigration Minister Robert Jenrick also insisted the government would do “whatever is necessary” if the Rwanda case fails in the UK Supreme Court, with the Times now reporting the New Conservative group are pushing for a referendum on ECHR membership as part of the 2024 manifesto. Justice Secretary Alex Chalk and Attorney General Victoria Prentis of the One Nation wing are already said to be strongly opposed to it. Meanwhile John Redwood appeared on TalkTV to suggest recalling Parliament to pass a “simple piece of legislation” which would block future ECHR rulings. None of this looks “simple” so far…
The European Court of Human Rights has demanded the UK government to respond to a legal claim made by Ben Bradshaw, Caroline Lucas and Alyn Smith over alleged Russian interference in elections. Yes, they’re still banging on about this…
Having fallen flat on their faces in the High Court in 2021 alongside Carole Cadwalladr – the judge ruled the case was “unarguable” and threw it out – the three MPs have now turned to Strasbourg to explain away why Remain lost in 2016. They’d previously claimed Boris had “unlawfully failed to act compatibly with his public law duties in refusing to establish a public inquiry” on the issue, and insist the government has now breached its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg now say the government has until the end of April to respond…
The ECHR did add that this request doesn’t yet mean the case has been found admissible. A Downing Street spokesperson said “I would point out this claim has been roundly rejected by UK courts.” Not that that’ll ever placate the likes of Caroline Lucas…
