Labour finds itself facing opposition from the public regarding immigration control. The Opposition argues that instead of tackling the issue of illegal migrants directly, ministers prefer to engage in conflicts with “Lefty lawyers” who attempt to block their deportation to Rwanda. While there may be some truth to the political advantage for ministers in this clash, it also reveals a lack of alternative solutions among the critics.
The involvement of the European Court of Human Rights has introduced another element: the extent to which Britain can exercise its sovereignty. Although not an EU entity, aspects of the Brexit deal depended on continued membership in the convention, making it difficult, if not impossible, to ignore.
The British judiciary, including the Supreme Court, had given approval for some of the designated migrants to be sent to Rwanda. However, the first flight was unexpectedly cancelled after an appeal to Strasbourg. It is debatable whether the UK could have disregarded this ruling, which was made under the court’s emergency procedures, especially considering that the conditions for intervention may not have been met. The hasty decision-making process and secrecy surrounding it make it difficult to comprehend the reasoning behind it.
Nevertheless, as the Home Secretary pointed out in the Commons, no court has declared the policy unlawful. A comprehensive legal hearing is scheduled for next month, and the policy can only be deemed illegal if it is demonstrated that sending the migrants to Rwanda would put them in danger. The only known risk they face currently is attempting to cross the Channel in small boats.
Reference
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
Denial of responsibility! Vigour Times is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
Labour finds itself facing opposition from the public regarding immigration control. The Opposition argues that instead of tackling the issue of illegal migrants directly, ministers prefer to engage in conflicts with “Lefty lawyers” who attempt to block their deportation to Rwanda. While there may be some truth to the political advantage for ministers in this clash, it also reveals a lack of alternative solutions among the critics.
The involvement of the European Court of Human Rights has introduced another element: the extent to which Britain can exercise its sovereignty. Although not an EU entity, aspects of the Brexit deal depended on continued membership in the convention, making it difficult, if not impossible, to ignore.
The British judiciary, including the Supreme Court, had given approval for some of the designated migrants to be sent to Rwanda. However, the first flight was unexpectedly cancelled after an appeal to Strasbourg. It is debatable whether the UK could have disregarded this ruling, which was made under the court’s emergency procedures, especially considering that the conditions for intervention may not have been met. The hasty decision-making process and secrecy surrounding it make it difficult to comprehend the reasoning behind it.
Nevertheless, as the Home Secretary pointed out in the Commons, no court has declared the policy unlawful. A comprehensive legal hearing is scheduled for next month, and the policy can only be deemed illegal if it is demonstrated that sending the migrants to Rwanda would put them in danger. The only known risk they face currently is attempting to cross the Channel in small boats.