Subscribe to the View from Westminster newsletter to receive professional analysis directly to your email inbox.
Receive our complimentary email newsletter, “View from Westminster.”
The former home secretary, Suella Braverman, has faced criticism for allegedly seeking to emulate the tactics of Putin and Xi in her efforts to allow deportation flights to Rwanda.
Mrs. Braverman, who was let go during a reorganization this week, has stated that the prime minister’s plan to address the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Rwanda policy is illegal and unlikely to effectively remove asylum seekers before the upcoming election is not likely to be successful.
She predicts Mr Sunak’s two-part plan would likely get bogged down in both domestic and European courts as she proposed introducing legislation that “excludes all avenues of legal challenge”.
In a piece for The Daily Telegraph, Mrs Braverman stated that the government must put an end to self-deception and spin in order to find a solution to the issue of preventing migrants from crossing the English Channel.
The author states that relying on magical thinking is not helpful and simply making small changes to a failed plan will not solve the issue of boats arriving.
Mrs. Braverman contends that altering our arrangement with Rwanda and transforming it into a treaty, even with clear obligations regarding non-refoulement, will not resolve the underlying problem.
Instead, she suggests that ministers respond to the concerns expressed by the five senior judges regarding Rwanda’s asylum and legal system by incorporating UK observers and independent reviewers into the asylum decision process.
She stated that a new law should be introduced in Westminster to prevent any legal challenges and disregard international obligations, such as the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), through the use of specific “notwithstanding clauses”.
The Conservative politician on the right side of the political spectrum proposed that Parliament meet during the Christmas holiday in order to pass the new emergency law before the next year. The Member of Parliament for Fareham also stated that a new treaty with Rwanda would need to be approved by the courts, a procedure that she estimated could take up to a year.
Even if a triumph is achieved in local courtrooms, it would just result in the situation being transferred to Strasbourg, where the European court would deliberate at its own pace to determine its stance on our legislation, she noted.
The former head of the Home Office stated that the Prime Minister’s plan will not result in flights to Rwanda before an election, if Plan B is just a modified version of the unsuccessful Plan A.
Her ideas were immediately met with disapproval, including from her own political party, as the Conservatives remain divided over her strict stance.
On Thursday evening, MP Ashford for Damian Green stated on X: “The second test is the most unconservative statement I have ever heard from a Conservative politician. Allowing the state to have complete authority to disregard any legal limitations is reminiscent of the actions of Putin and Xi. We should not even consider going down that path.”
On Wednesday, Mr. Sunak announced that his administration intends to introduce emergency legislation in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling. The legislation would declare Rwanda as a “safe” country in the eyes of Parliament.
He also plans to negotiate an additional binding agreement, in addition to the £140m agreement already made with Kigali, to handle migrants who arrive in Britain via small boats.
The upcoming agreement with Rwanda is anticipated to tackle the Supreme Court’s worries regarding refoulement, which is when refugees whose asylum requests have been denied by Kigali may be returned to the nation they are escaping from.