Labour also finds itself on the wrong side of public opinion on the issue of immigration control. The Opposition claim is that ministers would rather have a fight with so-called “Lefty lawyers” trying to block the removal of illegal migrants to Rwanda than deal with the issue itself. There may be some truth in the accusation that it suits ministers politically to have this clash, but it also serves to expose the paucity of thinking among the critics about workable alternatives.
The intervention of the European Court of Human Rights introduced a new dimension: the extent to which Britain is able to make its own sovereign decisions. While the court is not an EU body, parts of the Brexit deal were predicated upon continued membership of the convention and this would be hard, if not impossible, to abrogate.
The British judiciary, including the Supreme Court, had given the go-ahead for at least some of the migrants earmarked for removal to be sent to Rwanda but the first flight was grounded at the last minute after an appeal to Strasbourg. It is at least debatable as to whether the UK could have ignored this ruling, which was made under the court’s emergency procedures, not least because the conditions for intervening appear not to have been met. Indeed, the decision was taken in such haste and amid such secrecy, it is hard to know what the reasoning was.
However, as the Home Secretary observed in the Commons, the policy has not been ruled unlawful by any court. A full legal hearing is due next month but the policy can only be deemed unlawful if it is shown that the migrants will be placed in peril by being sent to Rwanda. The one risk we know they do face is crossing the Channel in small boats.
Labour also finds itself on the wrong side of public opinion on the issue of immigration control. The Opposition claim is that ministers would rather have a fight with so-called “Lefty lawyers” trying to block the removal of illegal migrants to Rwanda than deal with the issue itself. There may be some truth in the accusation that it suits ministers politically to have this clash, but it also serves to expose the paucity of thinking among the critics about workable alternatives.
The intervention of the European Court of Human Rights introduced a new dimension: the extent to which Britain is able to make its own sovereign decisions. While the court is not an EU body, parts of the Brexit deal were predicated upon continued membership of the convention and this would be hard, if not impossible, to abrogate.
The British judiciary, including the Supreme Court, had given the go-ahead for at least some of the migrants earmarked for removal to be sent to Rwanda but the first flight was grounded at the last minute after an appeal to Strasbourg. It is at least debatable as to whether the UK could have ignored this ruling, which was made under the court’s emergency procedures, not least because the conditions for intervening appear not to have been met. Indeed, the decision was taken in such haste and amid such secrecy, it is hard to know what the reasoning was.
However, as the Home Secretary observed in the Commons, the policy has not been ruled unlawful by any court. A full legal hearing is due next month but the policy can only be deemed unlawful if it is shown that the migrants will be placed in peril by being sent to Rwanda. The one risk we know they do face is crossing the Channel in small boats.