The Prime Minister’s new plan for Rwanda means that no asylum seekers will be sent there before the next election, according to former Home Secretary Suella Braverman.
She wrote in the Telegraph that making small changes to a plan that didn’t work before won’t help the government reach its goals.
She said the leaders should not follow human rights laws at all to make it happen.
But former government minister Damian Green said this is the least conservative idea I’ve ever heard.
Mr Green, who used to work for Theresa May, said on BBC Radio 4 that going against the law is something only dictators like the leaders of China and Russia do.
The Supreme Court said the government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda may not be safe because they could be sent back to dangerous places.
After the court decision, Rishi Sunak said he will make a new law to say that Rwanda is a “safe” country.
The leader of the country said he will make a new agreement with Rwanda, so that the first flights can start in the spring.
Mrs Braverman said a new treaty was unrealistic, using the same strong language as her angry letter to Mr. Sunak when he fired her.
She said the suggested agreement would not help with the main problem, which is that the UK’s top court said Rwanda is not safe for sending back people who are seeking asylum.
Mrs Braverman lost her job as home secretary on Monday. She said that unless the prime minister makes better plans, the government won’t be able to keep its promise in time.
She said that if there’s a new treaty, it would still need to go through the courts, which would probably take at least a year.
She said that the process “could end in another loss”.
“That’s why the Prime Minister’s plan won’t have flights to Rwanda before an election if Plan B is just a slightly changed version of the failed Plan A,” she said.
Mrs Braverman said the PM’s new law should not follow the Human Rights Act, the European Convention on Human Rights, or other international rules like the Refugee Convention.
Caption for media.
Some of Mrs Braverman’s coworkers agree with her arguments.
Ex-cabinet minister Sir Simon Clarke said that parliament has the right to reject certain parts of the law if it’s absolutely necessary.
He said it was not right that our rules about human rights were stopping the government from policing the UK’s borders.
Mr Sunak wants to use the Rwanda policy to stop people from crossing the English Channel in small boats. This is one of his main promises and it’s meant to make people think twice about making the dangerous journey.
Transport Minister Mark Harper told BBC Breakfast that the government is determined to make the Rwanda policy work by spring.
The new law will likely have a hard time getting approved by the House of Lords because it has many judges from the Supreme Court. It could also be possible to have legal problems in court.
‘White is the opposite of black. ‘
Mr David Normington, who used to work for the Home Office, said on the Today show that Mrs. Braverman was “correct in a way” when she said it would be very hard to come up with a good policy for Rwanda.
The courts have said that the country is not safe. You cannot say that black is white.
Sir David was asked if international law is old-fashioned. He said that international agreements were made to protect those who are easily harmed.
It’s not clear how Mrs. Braverman’s plan would work legally and quickly right away.
The UK and other countries in the European Convention on Human Rights can temporarily ignore some of its rules during a war or emergency. The main protection in the Rwanda case is that no one should be tortured or treated in a cruel way, and this right cannot be taken away, even in special circumstances.
In 2001, there was a new rule to keep al-Qaeda suspects in jail without any charges. But the courts said this was against the law.
While Boris Johnson was prime minister, the government suggested making changes to some human rights laws in a bill that was heavily criticized. However, Rishi Sunak later canceled the bill.
It’s not clear how Mrs. Braverman’s plan would work legally and fast.
The UK and other countries in Europe can choose to ignore certain parts of the European Convention on Human Rights in times of war or emergencies. The main protection in the Rwanda case is that no one should be tortured or treated in a cruel way, and this right cannot be taken away, even in extreme situations.
The UK has only not followed the rules of the ECHR eight times in 70 years. Seven times, paramilitaries were held during the fighting in Northern Ireland. In 2001, there was a controversy about keeping al-Qaeda suspects in custody without charging them. The courts later ruled that this was against the law.
While Boris Johnson was prime minister, the government suggested changing and reducing certain human rights protections in a new bill. But Rishi Sunak cancelled the bill after it received a lot of criticism.
Leaving the ECHR completely would break the Good Friday Agreement, which is important for peace in Northern Ireland, and make the UK’s partners in Europe very angry. This could make it harder for the UK to work with other countries to stop boats.