The country is collapsing, the planet is burning, and the British government is inactive fighting boats. Ministers most likely know something we don't know – it's not easy to find a link between a fistful of people fleeing plagues and wars and mediocre earnings, collapsing schools and disappearing wellness care.
Maybe the government is just going to decree in the spring that everything is as it should be: citizens who are well-maintained and happy, and the United Kingdom not only rules the seas and oceans, But he's the best of the countries.
You think I'm kidding? Not at all. It turns out that our government has the power to do so large that his word becomes flesh. In December Prime Minister Sunak presented the task in Parliament Rwanda safety Act stating that Rwanda is simply a safe country. There you go. The magic of reality is what we say!
The bill aims to impose on the courts the statutory work to treat Rwanda as a safe country, regardless of any facts or circumstances. For example, report The U.S. State Department of 2022 lists a series of “safe” procedures involving the Rwandan government, including torture, degrading treatment, kidnapping and death in detention.
In this case, we must hope that the government will focus attention on real social problems and solve them equally rapidly with further laws. Why don't I make a decree that all citizen can afford an apartment? Or that we're healthy and we don't request doctors? At least the British cuisine and weather are the best in the world?
Sunak is most likely counting that if Announce Rwanda a safe country for refugees, excludes the work to accept them under the cooperation programme signed in 2022. Because, although the British media did not announce this, this agreement provides that we will receive from Rwanda asylum seekers rejected by it in exchange for the privilege of sending about 100–200 people there annually.
Meanwhile, in an alternate lawyer universe, indicatethat if the Rwanda safety Act enters into force, it will not only violate national law and global obligations, but will besides undermine constitutional rules regarding the relation between the judiciary, parliament and executive authority. However, for any members the ruling organization project The bill doesn't go Far enough, it provides for any very narrow possibilities of individual appeal based on individual insecurity – for example, women in advanced pregnancy, erstwhile flying a plane can be dangerous to health. What a failure by the government, which the bill presented in consequence to decision ultimate Court ruling that refugee return programme Rwanda is illegal due to the fact that Rwanda is not a "safe 3rd country".
The ultimate Court's decision resulted in increased votes of prominent, ekhem, intellectuals like Lee Anderson is Suelli Bravermanthat high time Depart from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Over the last 2 years, rhetoric about the rejection of the ECHR has revolved mainly around "illegal immigrants" (i.e. refugees), but it has been for years calling for, threatening, and promising that we will deviate from the convention.
In 2014, the Conservatives committed a work called “noise ” Protection of Human Rights in BritainBut a year later they stopped hiding and on the election program clearly determined intentions removal The British Human Rights Act (1998), which incorporated the rights set out in the ECHR into national law and allowed enforcement of the rights contained in the Convention before British courts. In 2016, Theresa May, then Home Secretary, stated that we should reject the ECHR due to the fact that she is guilty of delaying extradition panic fishy Abu Hamza.
The same year the Guardian showed sketch with Patrick Stewart as Prime Minister, titled What has the ECHR always done for us? (in the spirit of “what have the Romans always done for us?” from Brian's Life). After a predictable calculation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention (to a fair trial, private life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as the right to freedom from slavery and torture) by ministers who want to aid the Prime Minister appreciate the benefits of the Convention, this states that it would be much better for us (those from the large Charter of Freedom!) to push the Europeans our own convention of rights. Ministers remind the Prime Minister of the function of British lawyers and British law in preparing the ECHR, which Europeans have just signed.
It was neither a very comic nor sophisticated sketch, but it gave a perfectly certain kind of national sentiment, to which right-wing politicians constantly drink – 2 years earlier the Prime Minister and the current abroad Minister David Cameron, he shouted that as the country that created Magna Carta and liberated Europe from Fascism, we do not request us to Strasbourg taught about human rights.
National clown Boris Johnson he played this card even during the pandemic and negotiations on the exit from the EU, although it is clear that if the UK Human Rights Act were to be abolished, the European Union would automatically retreat from cooperation in the field of police and judiciary, which would be much worse for a country with recently "recovered" borders than for the Union.
In 2022 the Tories tried to push through the task Charter of Rights to replace the existing Human Rights Act. If it had entered into force, the Charter would have made it hard for citizens to exercise their rights in courts (by introducing a fresh preliminary stage, during which the defendants would gotta prove before the court that they had suffered or suffered crucial losses as a consequence of the violation of their rights) and would have prevented claims of human rights violations arising from military operations outside our borders. In 2023, the Tories abandoned the thought and alternatively pushed Illegal Migration Actwhich allows the detention and deportation of persons who have entered the country by sea.
Contrary to what the government is now honking, it is not about reducing immigration or securing the road through the La Manche Canal. This could have been resolved long ago and efficiently by establishing legal pathways for asylum seekers and hiring officials to process asylum applications. It's a government. failedLike everything else (maybe hoping that suicide people held in terrible conditions and without the right to work will yet relieve Home Office). Telling voters that boat passengers flood the British coast is ridiculous. It's a drop in the sea towards migration scale income, increased After a brexit and in a 67-million-dollar country where there are inactive no hands to work.
In Fox News and non-biased principles of impartiality or integrity of tv stations Talk tv and GB News, as well as in the stunning social media channels, there is no shortage of votes that we should pronounce the convention. Threatened by "illegal immigration", voters are to vote again like turkeys for Christmas, just like in the brexite referendum 8 years ago. The same suspects are talking about how it's gonna be. Finally well and sovereignly, erstwhile we yet get out of the ECHR (no Strasbourg spit in our face). 1 of the things he does is Jacob Rees Mogg, erstwhile Minister for the benefit of the brexit (Ministry of deletedbecause the benefits even to the government of magicians did not find).
The rejection of the European Convention on Human Rights will yet let us to drown refugees in the sea, but this is just the beginning. There is presently no alternative, codified government in the UK to warrant respect for human rights. Denunciation of the Convention will be equal to the waiver of household rights, the right to free elections or rights to defend workers – who wants to work on a fourteen-hour working day? Who wants to give distant the weekend, sick or paid leave?
Even erstwhile we were inactive an EU associate State (the teardrop in the eye turns), labour rights in the Islands were the weakest in the Union and far behind in the planet table. 1 hope is that the deficiency of a law protecting against forced robots will solve the problem of the deficiency of willing to collect fruit and vegetables.
Human rights are already broken in Britain. In 2019, so even before the pandemic and Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Human Rights Watch She was alertingthat due to the politics of the British government parents are incapable to feed their own children. The right to feed remains unfulfilled for an expanding number of people.
Trussell Trust charity noted the increase in the request for emergency food packages from 26 000 per year between 2008 and 2009 to 1.6 million between 2018 and 2019 and to almost 3 million between 2022 and 2023. Even these figures do not give a full image of the situation, as the food bank network is now much larger.
Illegal Migration Act of 2023, she has already put us on a collision course not only with national law, but besides with the European Convention on Human Rights, bringing us closer [the author is simply a British citizen – ed.] to the realization of right-wing dreams. It is known that the Tories want to pronounce the ECHR now, but will they really? They would gotta discharge a country from the Council of Europe whose membership requires compliance with the ECHR. Then we could start a fresh club – with Russia and Belarus.
Fortunately, the ruling organization has no mandate for specified maneuvers. But the upcoming election is the perfect time to turn up the heat and manage fear. It wouldn't be the first time a large condition of sausage venom would be in the election sausage. People on both sides of the debate on human rights are already fevering, which only strengthens political division in the country. To make this sausage easier.
