He says it has been 18 months since he was in Rwanda.
The bill contains provisions that override existing laws. As a result, individuals will not be able to use domestic legislation to dispute deportation decisions.
He presents a list of potential justifications that immigrants may attempt to utilize in order to contest a deportation ruling. However, all of these have been thwarted.
According to him, the sole exception to the rule would be if someone could provide substantial proof that they would face serious danger if they were sent overseas.
Without this clause, Rwanda would not have consented to the proposal, and as a result, the entire plan would have failed.
He states that this exception is incredibly limited. This indicates that the likelihood of a challenge being successful will be extremely low.
(Chris Heaton-Harris made this point earlier today – see 10:40 AM.)
UPDATE: Sunak said:
This bill effectively prevents any previous justifications for halting flights to Rwanda from being utilized.
The sole, very limited exclusion will be if you can demonstrate with reliable and convincing proof that you specifically face a genuine and immediate danger of severe and irreversible damage.
It is important to acknowledge that, legally speaking, if we fail to do so, we would weaken the treaty we have recently entered into with Rwanda.
According to the Rwandans themselves, if we continue, the entire plan will fail.
There is no purpose in having a bill without a designated location for people to be directed to.
However, I must inform you that we have set a very high standard that will be extremely difficult for anyone to reach.
The Senate is obstructing the passage of additional financial assistance.
In a discussion beginning here, Landale mentions that Cameron, the recently appointed foreign secretary, stated that backing Ukraine would benefit America.
British Foreign Secretary David Cameron made a bold statement regarding domestic politics in the United States. While visiting Washington, he warned policymakers that American lives could be in danger if they refuse to approve new funds for Ukraine. This came shortly after the Senate rejected a proposed £61 billion for Kyiv.
At the Aspen Security Forum, he expressed concern that the US and the West were not providing enough support to Ukraine in its fight against Russian forces. He emphasized the importance of aiding Ukraine through the winter so that it can rebuild in the spring.
According to Lord Cameron, not meeting this standard would be considered a success for Putin. Allowing him to prevail in Ukraine could lead to further conflicts, potentially putting not only American funds but also lives of NATO countries in jeopardy.
He stated, “If the funds are not approved, only two individuals will benefit. One of them is Vladimir Putin of Russia, and the other is Xi Jinping. I don’t think anyone would want to give them a Christmas present.”
Lord Cameron refuted the assertions put forth by certain Republican senators, including claims that Ukraine’s military efforts were unsuccessful, that Europe was not doing enough, that the strategy lacked clarity, and that Ukraine was rife with corruption.
According to him, Ukraine had destroyed 20% of Russia’s Black Sea fleet. European nations provided twice as much aid compared to the US. The plan was to provide assistance to Ukraine during the winter and help with reconstruction in the spring. Additionally, Ukraine now has stricter anti-corruption laws than both the US and the UK.
The reason Rishi Sunak is prioritizing small boats is due to the lackluster performance of the Conservative party on immigration as a whole. Hill states:
According to Home Secretary James Cleverly, the government’s newest plans are expected to reduce immigration by 300,000. However, this number will not bring the annual influx back to its level when the Conservative party first took office.
Sunak’s continued emphasis on Rwanda and the topic of asylum, despite the challenges faced in implementing the program, serves as a way to signal a tough stance on immigration without acknowledging the fact that the Conservative government has been implementing a significantly relaxed immigration policy since 2019.
This issue existed before Sunak’s time. However, neither he nor those before him were willing to face the difficult decisions that would come with reducing the UK’s dependence on foreign workers. Instead, they have consistently talked about taking strong action and placed a conservative in charge at the Home Office, expecting them to solve the problem. Meanwhile, other departments like education, business, and the Treasury continue to implement policies that contribute to increasing numbers.
Sunak’s attention on the controversial Rwanda plan is his attempt at addressing a difficult dilemma: how can one promote a strict stance on immigration when their past actions contradict it? I predict that in the upcoming year, he will come to understand the harsh reality that this cannot be achieved.
50% admitted he was incorrect, while 40% believed he was correct, making it a noteworthy minority. The Political Currency podcast, which he co-hosts alongside Ed Balls, discusses the rivalry between Osborne and Johnson. This rivalry dates back to when they were both considered potential successors to David Cameron as prime minister. Johnson’s effective leadership of the leave campaign in 2016 ultimately ended Osborne’s political aspirations.
In February of 2020, Johnson stayed at Chevening, a government-owned country estate, for an extended period while his official residence, Chequers, was undergoing renovations. In his testimony to the Covid investigation, Dominic Cummings, Johnson’s former top advisor, stated that Johnson took a two-week holiday to handle personal matters such as his divorce, engagement announcement, and media scrutiny from an ex-partner. Cummings also noted that Johnson had expressed a desire to work on his biography of Shakespeare during this time.
Johnson’s supporters have rejected the accusation about the Shakespeare book, and during the Covid inquiry, Johnson stated that he had conducted some business meetings while at Chevening. However, the ex-Prime Minister has not provided a complete explanation of how he utilized that period.
“The podcast episode was titled
In his podcast, Osborne announced that the title of the episode was:
I believe Johnson faced a financial challenge in the beginning of 2020 due to his new role as prime minister, which resulted in a significant decrease in his income. Additionally, he had a large tax payment to make as a result of giving paid speeches during his time as foreign secretary. He likely did not anticipate this expense and did not set aside enough money to pay HMRC later on.
Due to his busy schedule, he was unable to address the issue of Covid. This is a speculation about the events in February. It was not mentioned during the Covid inquiry, but it is my personal belief as to why he was absent during that time.
A representative for Johnson stated in reply:
This statement is completely absurd and goes against the evidence presented during the investigation. It proves that Mr. Johnson was actively working during this time, attending meetings in person at Downing Street, receiving tasks, and participating in discussions related to Covid.
On the Political Currency podcast, co-hosted by Ed Balls and himself, the previous Conservative chancellor stated that the occurrences of this week have weakened Rishi Sunak’s assertion of being a stabilizing influence.
Osborne said:
The internal conflicts within the Tory party have resurfaced once again. Rishi Sunak made a bold statement, stating that he has taken over from the disorder caused by Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, and has successfully brought stability.
He can no longer assert that he has successfully stabilized the situation. The issue of immigration is causing divisions within his government.
Osborne suggested that Robert Jenrick’s resignation yesterday was not solely due to a disagreement over policy, but may also be a strategic move in preparation for future developments within the Tory party.
According to the PA, Conservatives and Common Sense organizations are also invested in the decision. When Rishi Sunak assumed leadership of the Conservative party, he was much more favored by the public than his party. This raised a key political concern: would he elevate his party’s reputation (as people saw them in a more positive light due to Sunak’s leadership), or would the opposite occur?
The solution is now evident. Recent polls from Ipsos validate that serving as the leader of the Tory party has greatly affected Sunak’s popularity in a negative way.
According to Keiran Pedley, the politics director at Ipsos,
At the beginning of the year, the prime minister’s individual approval ratings were higher than those of his party. In January, Rishi Sunak had a net favorability rating of -9, while the Conservative party had a rating of -26. Currently, Mr. Sunak’s rating has decreased to -28 and the Conservative party’s has fallen to -33. With a year filled with public worries about living costs, the National Health Service, and immigration, Mr. Sunak’s popularity has declined and he is now almost as disliked as the party he leads. He faces the challenge of improving their collective fortunes by 2024.
In a recent update by @IpsosUK, it has been revealed that in 2023, Rishi Sunak’s popularity within his party reached almost equal levels of unpopularity.
Net favourability
Jan 2023
Sunak: -9
Conservatives: -26
November 2023
Sunak: -28
Conservatives: -33
Source: theguardian.com
