Stopping the Boats
Suella Braverman’s departure – and replacement with the smooth-faced former Prime Minister is a momentous act of virtue-signalling by the beleaguered Tories, as they watch their popularity in the polls slide down into figures that mean inevitable electoral obliteration. Resurrecting David Cameron may have been a shrewd move but the Tory rhetoric – from head to bottom – from fringe to centre – is still all about ‘stopping the boats’, and is still deeply committed to the bizarre and wildly dangerous Rwandan policy.
The Conservatives response to the policy being ruled illegal on numerous counts by the Supreme Court was just to double down, blame the lefty-lawyers, and demand that any ‘law’ be just removed or ignored if it was an impediment to their inhumane madness. The Party of Law and Order has once again proven itself to be deeply committed to illegality.
In fact the Prime Minister has staked his entire political credibility on pushing through emergency legislation to resurrect his plan to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda, after the supreme court ruled it was unlawful. As if operating in an alternate reality several top Tories declared the ruling a great success.
Standing at a lectern bearing the “stop the boats” slogan on Wednesday afternoon, arranged after the five judges unanimously rejected the proposal, Sunak said legislation would end the “merry-go-round” of legal challenges by setting out in law that the east African country is safe. Quite how he would do this is unclear but he was acting ‘resolute’ and tough saying: “I am prepared to do what is necessary to get flights off. I will not take the easy way out.”
This bizarre, illegal and illogical idea has become a sort of obsession and a source of blackmail for the Conservative far-right who are now gunning for the EHCR who the Prime Minister referred to as a “foreign court”. Of course it’s not but in this debate there’s not much need for facts or evidence.
We are, once again, trapped inside a Tory Civil War, as we seem to have been for thirty years. Quite how such a deranged maniacal policy has been allowed to become the centre-piece of Rishi Sunak’s regime is unimaginable. But the culling of the rogue Home Secretary Braverman has not made the policy go away, it has just improved PR and bought Just Call Me Dave back to the fore. But the policy, even though it has been ruled illegal is already causing havoc and hardship before a single plane leaves the ground. As Enver Solomon chief executive of the Refugee Council has pointed out tens of thousands of people are in limbo: “Since the Rwanda plan was announced by Boris Johnson back in April 2022, we have seen much distress and trauma caused to people who face being sent to the east African country to have their asylum claims processed.”
“Letters have been received, menacingly called notices of intent, warning people that they are being considered for forcible removal. A recent freedom of information request found that between January 2021 and March this year more than 24,000 people had received the letters.”
“Every time a person receives one, it causes considerable stress. We are aware of some cases in which the impact on people’s mental health has been so acute that it has led to self-harm and suicide attempts. This is the harsh reality of the lived experience for men, women and children from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran and Eritrea – where oppressive regimes chase down their opponents – and from countries such as Sudan and Syria, where wars are playing out.”
Britain is in a cycle of warmongering and then punishing the citizens of the countries fleeing wreckage twice over. As Solomon points out the abandonment of Rwanda, if that is what transpires leaves the flagship (sic) Illegal Migration Act a lost piece of legislation. The act (and you really need to get your head around this), “extinguishes access to asylum in the UK”.
Those who arrive ‘irregularly’ will not be able to apply for asylum and face removal to a so-called safe third country. But now that the supreme court has concluded that the deal is unlawful because Rwanda is unsafe for people seeking asylum these people are in complete limbo. This could be as many as 30,000 people. The human misery of already vulnerable and distressed people – often fleeing appalling circumstances – is completely ignored by the media who are either in the feeding frenzy of racism they profit from – or gorging themselves on the pantomime of Tory back-biting and infighting.
None of this matters to the Tories who have created this mayhem for political ends. What’s both depressing and terrifying about all of this is that someone somewhere must have made the political calculation that sending vulnerable people to Rwanda was a political vote-winner. Now we are in a position where Suella Braverman (who hasn’t gone away) is operating behind the scenes, leveraging her 15 minutes of fame to play to the far-right and manipulate the (eager and willing) media. As the barrister Paul Powlesland has written:
We are now essentially in a race to the bottom to discard any laws that stand in the way of this unhinged policy. This is being pursued by a deeply unpopular but desperate political party who have shown a complete contempt for the rule of law. We are in unchartered waters here. Britain – the political entity that masqueraded in 2014 as a beacon of multiculturalism, a source of strength and stability and the home of the Mother of All Parliaments – has degenerated into chaos and casual racism. This government – this Prime Minister we didn’t elect has tied itself to a policy would not be out of place in the 1974 manifesto of the National Front.
This debacle started, like so much else, with the bluster and lies of Boris Johnson. Over a year ago Johnson announced that Rwanda was “one of the safest countries in the world, globally recognised for its record on welcoming and integrating migrants”. There would be no cap on the numbers of asylum seekers to be sent away and Rwanda would have the capacity “to resettle tens of thousands of people”. The policy, Johnson told everyone was “fully compliant” with the government’s legal obligations and treaties and human rights.
Of course none of this was true as the Supreme Court ruled to no-ones surprise. Far from being the font of security and moderation that we were told Britain is a basket-case run by psychopaths. Replacing Braverman with Cameron does nothing to change that. Imagine living in a country where you had foreign policy decisions and immigration policies you weren’t ashamed of? We are so deep into this madness it’s actually difficult to do so. That’s what we lose by being tied to the British state.
But where is the Labour Party response to this given that the leader is, allegedly, a human rights lawyer?
Here is yet another example of Labour remaining shtumm so as not to say anything which might deter ‘red wall’ and other voters who might switch from the Conservatives to Labour and defending human rights would be branded ‘woke’ by the media and the Tories.
I suppose it could be worse, Labour’s other strategy is to say that ‘the Tories are not going far enough’ and they will be much stricter in terms of immigration policy.
Great article Mike.
They do realise Rwanda only has 200 beds. Do they really believe that if they send 200 there the other migrants will leave the UK of their own free will or is it their intention to embark on a massive hotel building program in Rwanda while UK citizens are moving into shanty towns (or tents when Suella isn’t looking).
As Alasdair says, where is the Labour party in all this.
Can I just point out Mike, Cameron hasn’t replaced Braverman, he is foreign sec, Cleverly is now home sec.
The article says that Cameron has replaced Braverman in cabinet not as Foreign Secretary which is technically correct.
15 all in the pedantry stakes!
Thanks
@Alan C, yes, David Cameron, British Foreign Secretary, who reports to USAmerican Secretary of State Antony Blinken:
https://www.reuters.com/world/blinken-new-uk-foreign-minister-discuss-israel-ukraine-china-2023-11-13/
I agree with every word of this article. Not only is this policy morally grotesque, plainly unworkable it is also eye wateringly expensive.
Agreed, but I would just observe that it didn’t start with Johnson, who was apparently catapulted into No.10 by the Tufton Street mob. As were Liz Truss and Rishi. Even Theresa May’s wooden public appearances always seemed rather like hostage videos.
We don’t know who funds Tufton Street, but we do have a king who is very much engaged with politics, and who meets ‘his’ prime minister regularly to discuss policy and legislation – and, no doubt, appointments. He did declare the Rwanda policy ‘appalling’ some time ago.
David Cameron is (I understand) the king’s cousin. Does that perhaps have anything to do with his sudden and unexpected reappearance? His appointment certainly raises two fingers to public opinion and reminds us that foreign policy – in Palestine, and everywhere else – is ultimately a reserved matter to the monarch.
Charles doesn’t think of himself as a powerless apolitical figurehead (if such a thing was really possible) or a quaint tourist attraction. By both nature and nurture he believes himself to be a king, in all that implies, by the grace of God, entitled to rule. Kings and democracy don’t mix. His grandfather was King Emperor of half the world and Charles himself is head of state of Canada, Australia and elsewhere as well as the UK. The Monarchy has always intervened, if it believes its interests are affected. Foreign policy is clearly of interest to Charles who is just back from Kenya – where it seems Britain still has a military presence, but perhaps the less said about that the better.
David Cameron is (I understand) the king’s cousin. Does that perhaps have anything to do with his sudden and unexpected reappearance? His appointment raises two fingers to public opinion and reminds us that foreign policy – in Palestine, and everywhere else – is ultimately a reserved matter to the monarch.
Charles’s public announcement of the’Great Reset’ in 2020 tells us all we need to know about his politics. If you remember, he told us all that the pandemic was a great ‘opportunity’ to ‘reset’ the world economy. He and his friends would henceforth be the only ‘stakeholders’. Governments around the world would be expected to ‘co-operate’. And a new (deemed) ‘social contract’ meant ‘You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy’.
British foreign policy at the moment seems to be about dividing and ruling the world everywhere, portraying all Muslims as ‘terrorists’ and all Jews as ‘victims’ dangerously intent on revenge, while black people are apparently all ‘gangsters’, liberals are ‘woke’ advocates of cancel culture (whatever that means). Freedom of speech is now ‘right wing’, and human rights and the rule of law are a matter for ‘lefty lawyers’. Even social democracy is now ‘socialism’, meaning an evil conspiracy of reds under the bed.
I don’t blame Charles personally for all this. He can’t help himself. But we do urgently need an independent republic of Scotland where we can practice genuine democracy, and pursue a foreign policy that serves the needs of peace, prosperity, people and planet as a whole.
We don’t need anyone’s permission to tear up the Act of Union and negotiate a new relationship based on mutual respect rather than ‘subjection’
A couple of days ago. Mike Small used Adolf Eichmann to describe contemporary Britain.
Now, he has followed that up by describing Britain a ‘basket case run by psychopaths.’
Has he not noticed ?
Unionists of all hues are gloating. That is what the hounding – deserved or not – of Michael Matheson is about.
Right now, it is the failure of nationalism which is making the political weather in Scotland.
Unionists are looking forward to a general election in Scotland.
Florian says the failure of nationalism is the unionist propaganda line. But the failure is most evident in Westminster, where keir Starmer wraps himself in the Union flag.
I think we have an excellent opportunity to remind everyone that ‘nationalism’ is an obsession of the Unionists and that any failures are entirely theirs. I have received another LibDem propaganda ‘free newspaper’ a couple of days ago. That’s several we’ve had over the last fw months, plus a full page advert in the community newspaper. The LibDems seem to think that because Charles Kennedy was a popular figure here years ago, they are destined to win the seat back for the Union. But it’s all just thje usual hate mail – not a word of anything positive, just endless vitriolic attacks on the SNP. But then perhaps the LibDems have decided making pledges they then betray is worse than making no pledge at all. Tories stand up in Holyrood likewise and go on the attack, but they conveniently fail to acknowledge that their parties’ records are far worse than the SNP, whatever its problems. They can’t assume that votes lost to the SNP will transfer to Unionism.
I don’t think this supposed failure of nationalism is a very intelligent approach for them to take. I think it’s likely to turn round and bite them.