|
|
Post by Saint on Apr 14, 2024 9:32:35 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2024 13:48:51 GMT
Well if Rwanda is not regarded as a safe country, and asylum seekers arriving here risk being sent there, then yes, we cease to be a safe country for refugees in the eyes of international law.
Instead of legal processes weighing up the evidence as to how safe a particular country is for any particular asylum seekers, the government has legislated to declare Rwanda a safe country by law regardless of any evidence to the contrary and in spite of the fact that it has no direct control over conditions there.
But since apparently any country can be made safe by us merely passing a law that says it is it is a pity we didn't pass a law in 1939 that declared Germany safe. World War Two need never have been fought. Or is it actually the case that the government is taking us for idiots, in the certain knowledge that enough of us are to make the effort worthwhile?
The other forum very much springs to mind on that score. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Apr 14, 2024 15:26:17 GMT
Well if Rwanda is not regarded as a safe country, and asylum seekers arriving here risk being sent there, then yes, we cease to be a safe country for refugees in the eyes of international law. Instead of legal processes weighing up the evidence as to how safe a particular country is for any particular asylum seekers, the government has legislated to declare Rwanda a safe country by law regardless of any evidence to the contrary and in spite of the fact that it has no direct control over conditions there. But since apparently any country can be made safe by us merely passing a law that says it is it is a pity we didn't pass a law in 1939 that declared Germany safe. World War Two need never have been fought. Or is it actually the case that the government is taking us for idiots, in the certain knowledge that enough of us are to make the effort worthwhile? The other forum very much springs to mind on that score. lol Absolutely agree. The thing is, the usual suspects on the other forum would likely break into loud cheers at the news that immigrants arriving in Ireland won't be sent back to the UK. It won't matter to them that there is a breach of international law. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 14, 2024 18:42:24 GMT
I feel I've missed some news. Have the commons passed the Rwanda thing?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Apr 14, 2024 19:49:05 GMT
No. I believe it comes back post recess this week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Apr 14, 2024 22:18:16 GMT
I feel I've missed some news. Have the commons passed the Rwanda thing? It was explained in the link. I've just checked, and it seems that the link isn't working. I'll see if I can find the article again and provide a working link. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Apr 14, 2024 22:19:56 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2024 23:34:27 GMT
The link appears to be working for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Saint on Apr 15, 2024 0:09:24 GMT
The link appears to be working for me. TCheers for letting me know. Oddly, I'm getting the message This page can't be found when I click on the link. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 15, 2024 6:12:03 GMT
I feel I've missed some news. Have the commons passed the Rwanda thing? It was explained in the link. I've just checked, and it seems that the link isn't working. I'll see if I can find the article again and provide a working link. Found it. So the Irish supreme court ruled some illegal immigrants could not be returned to the UK because there was a chance in the future that they may be sent to Rwanda. |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Apr 15, 2024 7:02:50 GMT
It was explained in the link. I've just checked, and it seems that the link isn't working. I'll see if I can find the article again and provide a working link. Found it. So the Irish supreme court ruled some illegal immigrants could not be returned to the UK because there was a chance in the future that they may be sent to Rwanda. I think the Irish High Court found that Ireland's domestic legislation was not compliant with EU requirement arising from the Dublin 3 treaty so the 'safe country' designation was unlawful. As far as I can see, the effect of the Rwanda deal/legislation was not considered as part of the declaration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 15, 2024 7:36:44 GMT
Found it. So the Irish supreme court ruled some illegal immigrants could not be returned to the UK because there was a chance in the future that they may be sent to Rwanda. I think the Irish High Court found that Ireland's domestic legislation was not compliant with EU requirement arising from the Dublin 3 treaty so the 'safe country' designation was unlawful. As far as I can see, the effect of the Rwanda deal/legislation was not considered as part of the declaration.
Ok. Anyway the relevance here is presumably that the EU see us as unsafe and we should consider that as the EU make up a large proportion of what we call 'The West' and consider 'The West' as a representation of how the civilised world should act. |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Apr 15, 2024 7:53:31 GMT
I think the Irish High Court found that Ireland's domestic legislation was not compliant with EU requirement arising from the Dublin 3 treaty so the 'safe country' designation was unlawful. As far as I can see, the effect of the Rwanda deal/legislation was not considered as part of the declaration.
Ok. Anyway the relevance here is presumably that the EU see us as unsafe and we should consider that as the EU make up a large proportion of what we call 'The West' and consider 'The West' as a representation of how the civilised world should act. I don't think the issue was considered because of the difficulty with the Irish legislation although Rwanda was clearly part of the pleading. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Apr 15, 2024 18:09:18 GMT
Ok. Anyway the relevance here is presumably that the EU see us as unsafe and we should consider that as the EU make up a large proportion of what we call 'The West' and consider 'The West' as a representation of how the civilised world should act. I don't think the issue was considered because of the difficulty with the Irish legislation although Rwanda was clearly part of the pleading. Sorry, I don 't understand this answer equivocal |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Apr 15, 2024 18:36:52 GMT
I don't think the issue was considered because of the difficulty with the Irish legislation although Rwanda was clearly part of the pleading. Sorry, I don 't understand this answer equivocal Part of the case presented by the applicants asked the court to look at whether the Rwanda issue made the designation of the UK as a safe country was lawful. However, because of the way the Dublin 3 treaty interacted with Irish legislation the declaration that the UK was a safe country (made before the Rwanda issue arose) was found to be unlawful.
The court declined to look at the effect of the Rwanda issue because, having found the declaration unlawful in any event, there was no relevant issue to be decided.
175 (link) Insofar as the review ground constitutes a separate and distinct challenge to the continuing designation of the UK in the light of developments concerning the Rwanda Policy based on a breach of a duty to regularly review in accordance with s. 72A(4), I am satisfied that it is no longer necessary for me to determine this issue to the resolve the dispute between the parties in either of these two proceedings in the light of my conclusions as to the vires of the designation as set out above. Accordingly, by reason of the doctrine of judicial restraint, I purposely refrain from making any determination on the frequency with which a review in accordance with s. 72A(4) of the 2015 Act is required. This question should await a case in which it properly arises as necessary to the resolution of the dispute.
I am amazed that our government has chosen to legislate on a matter fact contrary to a finding of our Supreme Court. I can't even guess what might emerge when the issue reaches that court next time around.
.
|
|
