Supreme Court ruling re Rwanda

The government says these are the victims of "people smugglers" and therefore sets out to punish the victims, leaving the "people smugglers" untouched.

There are several people I would like to see flown to Rwanda, some without the plane needing to actually land but on reading the back story of some of the original 39 the Gvt selected for deportation, I wonder what actual degree of fear of persecution is enough for our governing sociopaths. But it is all about "the base" these days isn't it.

The Conservative Party used to be a broad coalition but now it is a narrow party governing for the 40% of the population its focus groups have identified as just enough to scrape it past the winning post.

There's no point having laws that you can wilfully ignore, nor courts for that matter.  Maybe we should just bin it. 

But good luck getting a replacement that doesn't involve the ECJ.

That could be 'problematic' since the ECHR is written into the Good Friday agreement.

Again that could be 'probematic' this time with the optics.  All measuring devices (weight, volume etc) require legal certification. The G'ments own dept the 'Office for Product Safety' withdrew from that area of work earlier this year.  The current options are to set BSI up with that responsibility (cost and manpower implications) or use SGS United Kingdom (part of a Swiss multinational) or NMi Certin UK (Dutch owned).

details, details who cares about details when there is a headline to be had.

There is a thread, but it's a bit moribund, surprisingly.
p2pindependentforum.com/thread/19502/rwanda-asylum-plan

There are just two things which I'm going to mention here...

1. If ECHR is the problem, what EXACTLY is the issue with the relevant section - article 3 - that can be resolved by the UK leaving the ECHR?
www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG
Article 3 says, in its entirety
ARTICLE 3 - Prohibition of torture
No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Is the government saying that they do not feel they can possibly be expected to be bound by that?

2. If the issue is Rwanda, specifically, rather than the concept of offshoring processing and resettlement to a third country, why does it have to be Rwanda? Can the UK government find no more acceptable third country that they can come to a deal with?
How did Priti Patel originally decide that Rwanda was the only country with which this deal could be signed, despite the UK's own ambassador to Kigali saying outright that it was not a suitable partner as early as September 2020? It wasn't merely omitted from the original shortlist of seven countries, nor on a later list of six - it was actually on a list of 14 countries NOT to do the deal with.
(Her original plan, btw, was Ascension and St Helena... - www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/30/priti-patel-looked-at-idea-of-sending-asylum-seekers-to-south-atlantic - but that was too bonkers and unworkable even for her)
This is Human Rights Watch's 2020 report on Rwanda : www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/rwanda and 2021 : www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/rwanda
Why did the UNHCR not get consulted on the feasibility? Why did they only find out about the deal when it was announced publicly?

Ton ⓉⓞⓃ thank you .

Bit about other European countries looking at similar schemes on R4 earlier.

Denmark and Germany are "investigating" options. Both of those are merely sops to far-right junior coalition partners.

Italy is looking at looking to house processing centres in Albania, but the key difference is that anybody who gains asylum will be allowed to come and live in Italy. Albanians can already live and work for three months out of six in Schengen, visa free.