The letter and the Court

Suella Braverman has made clear that she thought she had the agreement of the Prime Minister to legislate over small boats in such a way that the UK Courts would have to follow the wishes of Parliament rather than applying overseas rules and laws. She also claims his agreement to legislating to change the Northern Ireland Protocol and to remove unwanted EU inherited laws.She resigned because these promises were not kept. Downing Street has not contradicted these statements.

The government lost in court yesterday. They had refused to include the notwithstanding amendment some of us proposed and the outgoing Home Secretary says she wanted which we think would have offered better protection for the small boats policy.

The Prime Minister  promised legislation to deal with the Supreme Court issues over Rwanda . This legislation needs improving and widening if it is to work. He must clarify Parliament’s aim to stop the small boats and to send illegal migrants elsewhere in a law which overrides any international agreement which could act as the people traffickers friend.Simply embedding a new Rwanda Treaty in law leaves the government policy subject to further legal upsets based on international treaties, the ECHR  and principles.

221 Comments

  1. Mark B
    November 16, 2023

    Good morning.

    “Oh look, a squirrel !!”

    That is the game that is being played here – distraction.

    Look at and concentrate public opinion on illegal immigrants whilst LEGAL MASS IMMIGRATION, something they can do something about, goes untouched.

    They create a pointless scheme (Rwanda) designed to fool people that they are doing something (Rwanda would have made no difference to numbers of immigrants as it was a one-for-one swap) when in truth nothing would be achieved.

    The Rwanda trick was always bound to fail and once it did the government could once again blame the ECHR and the legal system, all the while hundreds of thousands flood into the country whilst we are distracted.

    A very crafty game has been played by both Braverman and the ‘Little Usurper’, and people are lapping it up.

    YOU ARE ALL BEING PLAYED.

    1. Everhopeful
      November 16, 2023

      +++
      Agree.
      However, assuming the boats are actually a reality and I have my doubts ( reporting of them has been forbidden and there is no access to hotels etc.) then of course they should be stopped.
      But as you say this could well be an attempt to divert our attention away from the legiaslation that made virtually all immigration legal ( lowering of earnings requirements etc.)
      So maybe it is all just a rather cruel game.
      A Punch and Judy show?
      All exceedingly worrying and confusing.

      1. Hope
        November 16, 2023

        Hunt today on national TV already backtracking saying govt could not guarantee planes taking off by the spring!!

        Braverman has already pointed out how long it has taken to date and Snake’s magical thinking to kick can down the road. No such tough talking today by Hunt, rather mealy mouthed to water down expectations on what Snake said yesterday!!

        In other news Cameron on TV promising to waste taxpayers money in corrupt Ukraine in aid and weapons!! Does he know he created the highest taxation burden on the working public in history!! Did cost of living hit Dave in his Shepherds hut writing his memoirs?

      2. Frances
        November 17, 2023

        Anyone living on the coast can tell you that they are real

    2. Sharon
      November 16, 2023

      I’d like to know why, when the country is full to bursting, the government wants and is making so easy, legal immigration? Why? It doesn’t make sense.

      1. Hope
        November 16, 2023

        Sharon,
        The Tories think it will grow GDP! Secondly, it helps rid the nation state, our view of family, our values and culture. We never asked, or was their ever a mandate to force us to accept alien cultures with laws to enforce compliance. Introduced by Harman and Blaire as Equality Act and Human Rights Act. But it was nothing of the sort. Hutchins has the measure of Cameron read his articles about him. Cameron and his ilk are not conservatives. We are ‘Turnip Taliban’ or ‘swivelled eyed loons’ for not accepting Tory mass immigration.

    3. BOF
      November 16, 2023

      Yes exactly Mark B.

      1. Hope
        November 16, 2023

        Cameron wants to expand EU to the Urals! Oh, how his presence in Ukraine today will help resolve dispute between Russia and Ukraine- not.

        1. glen cullen
          November 16, 2023

          I see our new PM is in the Ukraine today

          1. Lynn Atkinson
            November 17, 2023

            You mean Chippy Cameron?

        2. MFD
          November 16, 2023

          The man cameron is and always was a fool, now Sunak shows his true colours!
          Blue in the outside and red to the core.

    4. Michelle
      November 16, 2023

      Absolutely my sentiments exactly. What a convoluted performance for nothing. I was under the impression though that there wasn’t exactly a one for one deal, but more of a non-legally binding agreement to take a portion of Rwanda’s asylum seekers which all seems a bit odd to me.
      Of course British state being what it is and run by those not acting in our interests, that portion no doubt given time would end up being larger than any we sent to Rwanda. You just know it don’t you.

    5. Donna
      November 16, 2023

      Agreed. They are shoehorning people into this country as fast as they possibly can.

      Our infrastructure can’t cope; we haven’t got housing for those already here; most of those coming in are a drain on our society – they will NEVER pay their way.

      The last Manifesto … which is Sunak’s very tenuous claim for a mandate – promised to control and reduce immigration. He’s doing the opposite.

      The anti-Semitic rabble on the streets of London is the result of 20 years of mass immigration by people who will never “share our values.”

    6. Ian+wrag
      November 16, 2023

      Not so Cleverly says the boats are down by a third. He omits the fact that most of the boats are twice the size. Counting boats instead of bodies foils no-one.
      Sunak is marking time until Max Headroom takes over.
      Your finished as a serious party.

      1. Ian+wrag
        November 16, 2023

        On another subject I see today the Saudi Arabia of wind is providing just 1.5gw or 3% of demand
        Doesn’t augur very well for when the frost comes in earnest.

        1. Lifelogic
          November 16, 2023

          That is just 3% of “electrical” energy demand one assumes – so more like 0.6% of total UK energy needs. Not even very low Carbon either, when properly accounted for either. Though a bit more CO2 is actually a net good.

    7. Peter Parsons
      November 16, 2023

      The scheme is indeed pointless, but we are all still getting the bill for it. What will be the final cost to us taxpayers of this utter failure?

    8. a-tracy
      November 16, 2023

      I don’t believe people are ‘lapping it up’. They are more intelligent than that. There is an expectation that immigration rules will be followed, that people will be returned home, and that immigrants who pass our criteria work and keep themselves and their families and don’t drain other taxpayers and UK resources. We expect the people ‘we’ employ in the Home Office to look after this Country, not any other, and they are failing us. They aren’t being held accountable; that is all the executive can do if laws aren’t implemented in the first instance to deal with matters.

    9. beresford
      November 16, 2023

      A lot of truth here. But the Establishment screwed up because what should have happened is the Supreme Court should have given approval and then, after further lengthy delay, the appeal to the ECHR should have rejected the policy, allowing Sunak to go into the election pretending intent to leave the ECHR without having removed a single migrant. The point of the Rwanda scheme is that the individual migrant is deterred or otherwise by his fate, not overall numbers. We could deter illegal immigration by providing an unpleasant outcome on these shores and thus remove the pull factor, but this would require legislation to remove lawyers and ‘charities’ from the equation.

    10. Roy Grainger
      November 16, 2023

      You are wrong. Evidence from Australia is that offshore processing is extremely effective at preventing the boats because it has a strong deterrent effect. As soon as the first few dozen were sent to Rwanda the boats would stop.

      1. MFD
        November 16, 2023

        Yes Roy, but they must be put on the plane the rame day they arrive!

        1. Lynn Atkinson
          November 16, 2023

          Why let them arrive?

        2. Chris S
          November 16, 2023

          Exactly ! But they won’t be, will they?

    11. agricola
      November 16, 2023

      Mark,
      I do not include Suella in this farcical failure. The undemocratic Blob in the Home Office are responsible for the backlog and need to be dealt with. Rwanda was a bad choice of deterent, there are better places readily available , and in our control.
      You are correct in criticising so called legal migration. I suspect a whole parallel form of control is at work in the UK while the population is duped into thinking we have a Parliament based on democracy.

    12. Mitchel
      November 16, 2023

      Tony Blair’s longstanding interest in Rwanda (as subsequently in Ukraine-another attempt at liberal interventionist nation-building)is worth checking out.See Guardian Letters,8/4/14:”Tony Blair and his views on intervention and Rwanda.”

    13. formula57
      November 16, 2023

      Mark B – the chief benefit in fact of the Rwanda scheme is that in the case of a few illegals they would only obtain indefinite leave to remain in the U.K. after first having had an all expenses paid holiday in that attractive leisure destination.

    14. jerry
      November 16, 2023

      @Mark B; “That is the game that is being played here – distraction.”

      Yes and you’re also playing that game, trying to change the narrative from illegal to Legal immigration, away from the failure of what has clearly become a legally bankrupt policy, unless we start trashing our international standing – and such talk tends to loose electoral support, not win it (back)…

      Don’t get me wrong, many mere plebs were fooled by the policy, myself included, I supported the Rwanda policy when announced as I had (naively) assumed it had tested for legality before being announced, but no, it seems to have been announced off the back of a used envelope by Boris Johnson & Priti Patel simply to appease a minority of so called grass root activists.

      As for Legal Immigration, when will some find a clue, the UK’s indigenous working age population is falling, and it is set to fall much further in the next decade as the baby-boomer generation retire (unless the Govt moves the goal posts yet again), the UK faces a stark choice, accept Lawful Immigration or accept a shrinking economy.

      1. Sam
        November 16, 2023

        “Accept lawful immigration or accept a shrinking economy”

        Ah the old Ponzi scheme argument from Jerry.
        Allow half a million or more new arrivals every year in order to bolster our economy because the citizens of the UK are getting older.
        Forgetting that everyone coming here will also get old.

        Forgetting that each new person will need housing provision, health provision, education provision, energy and water provision, welfare and pensions.

        Just look at GDP per capita since 2000 to realise this is an an idea that is not working.

        Follow Jerry’s argument to its logical conclusion.
        Let’s allow 10 million new arrivals each year and we will all be realy wealthy

        1. jerry
          November 17, 2023

          @Sam “Forgetting that everyone coming here will also get old.”

          Yes, in 40+ years time, given the average age of would be immigrants…

          “Forgetting that each new person will need housing provision, health provision, education provision, energy and water provision, welfare and pensions.”

          Err???!!!! When people die do their their homes not become vacant, meaning others move up the housing ladder, allowing starters homes to come on to the resale or rental market.

          But even so, pretty simple to build some more houses, like we did in the 1950s through to the late 1970s. The current “Immigration Hotel Bill” is such we could likely build post war style pre-fab houses cheaper, and wasn’t that the proposal for disused MOD land, but no, the local NIMBYs objected.

          “Let’s allow 10 million new arrivals each year and we will all be realy wealthy”

          I never said that and you know it, unless you wish to admit to not actually reading my comment, tell me what did you not understand about the words “Lawful Immigration”?

          Follow Sam’s logic to its conclusion and within the next 20 years we will likely all be very much the poorer with a shrinking economy, probably with 1970s style stagflation.

          1. Sam
            November 18, 2023

            Jerry.
            Waffle all you want.
            Your original premise was that we desperately need immigration to get economic growth.
            Without immigration we will have “a shrinking economy” is what you claimed.
            Yet despite the biggest levels of immigration into this nation post 2000 in the history of the UK, growth has been poor.
            If your theory is right then economic growth since 2000 should have been spectacular.

          2. jerry
            November 18, 2023

            @Sam; Waffle, and troll, all you want but do check your ‘facts’…

            How many times, GOING FORWARD, the working age population is falling; before 2010 the baby-boomer generation was still largely economically active, do the maths, 2010 – 1947 = 63. If the working age population was growing, tax revenues static or growing, the state retirement age would likely be reducing, not increasing…

            “If your theory is right then economic growth since 2000 should have been spectacular.”

            It was … until the banking crash of 2008; just as it had during the 1950s and most of the 1960s, also an era of high immigration, allowing industry to expand with a plentiful supply of willing workers. As Macmillan once suggested, ‘you’ve never had it so good’, and indeed many were saying the same about the Blair era too.

          3. Sam
            November 18, 2023

            Hilarious that you smear anyone who argues against your views as a troll.
            It shows how poor your debating abilities are.

            Immigration in the 1960 and 1970s was in the tens of thousands,

            At a time the world is fast moving towards AI and robots and automation you want hundreds of thousands of new arrivals into a crowded nation.
            Isn’t 70 million ppeople enough?

            GDP per capita proves I am right.

    15. THUTCH
      November 16, 2023

      I’m not being played. I know what they are up to and if the small boats issue remains an issue I won’t be voting Tory. And there are no plans to reduce legal migration I also won’t vote for them.
      And neither will millions of others.
      I don’t care that Starmer is worse, the Tories have let us down badly and they have completely lost their way.
      Simples.

      1. jerry
        November 17, 2023

        @THUTCH; That my friend is called cutting your own nose off to spite someone else’s face.

        ‘Never mind that Starmer is worse, better him being PM than Sunak who is not so bad!’

        You’re being played, and played very well by the sounds of it, the only question is by who…

  2. Lifelogic
    November 16, 2023

    Exactly right. But Sunak has surely given up on the next election it seems. Perhaps he wants to beat John Major’s attempt to totally bury the Conservatives for many terms.

    Allister Heath is sensible as usual today:- The Tories’ calamitous failure to control our borders has driven them to the verge of oblivion. Sunak’s Rwanda fightback will fail unless he explicitly rejects anachronistic international conventions.

    1. Peter
      November 16, 2023

      Sunak will continue to talk and run the clock down until the next election. No change. That has been the policy all along. As Braverman stated, he never had any intention of addressing the issue.

      Viktor Orban would not allow things to come to this pass. He would simply take the necessary action.

      Also from the Telegraph article :-
      “ There is a greater question: do we believe in nation states, or do we prefer global technocratic governance? Do we believe that democracies have the right to control their borders and decide who is allowed to enter, or do we believe in largely or entirely open borders? ”

      All the talk of refoulement and the ECHR has been an excuse to do nothing. It’s a hope that the old adage still works and ‘BS baffles brains’. If it does it has a time limit. Eventually people realise that they are being played for fools.

    2. a-tracy
      November 16, 2023

      Why doesn’t he ask the Supreme Court justices to write the rules in the favour of the UK? It is the UK that pays them. They should write the rules in line with international regulations that are acceptable to them to do this without a fight. I thought the government employed the best legal brains, but it appears not.

      1. Lynn Atkinson
        November 16, 2023

        Because it’s the job of Parliament to ‘write the rules in favour of Britain’ (enact laws!)

        1. a-tracy
          November 16, 2023

          Lynn, the Parliament don’t seem capable of satisfying this new Blair created Supreme Court who obviously feel they are more qualified than our current law makers and their advisors in the commons (its quite embarrassing actually for the people who did write the appeal), so ask the Supreme Court judges what wording would enable the UK to do as they were elected to do with a large majority.

          It wasn’t a foreign court that stopped this Rwanda scheme it was the British Supreme Court.

          1. Lynn Atkinson
            November 16, 2023

            You mean you want to employ Supreme Court Judges to draft legislation? The Governments legislation says exactly what they want it to say. It’s not an error.

          2. a-tracy
            November 17, 2023

            It may not be an error but refoulement was overlooked “Five justices of the supreme court upheld an appeal court ruling, which found that there was a real risk of “refoulement”, meaning that deported refugees could have their claims wrongly assessed and therefore be returned to their country of origin, where they may face violence and persecution.”

            Yet our courts who grant refugee status to people claiming to be gay to a man who goes on to have three children with three different women in the UK, is a thief and all round bad egg gets to stay in the UK and his brother (was he gay too?). He will serve a prison sentence at our expense then just float out back into his criminal ways in the UK and these Judges are supposed to be superior to the lawmakers we elect.

          3. Lynn Atkinson
            November 17, 2023

            Refoulement was not overlooked by Braverman. Anyway I don’t know what the problem is the European Extradition Act (from which the Germans exempted themselves and signed the Treaty!) has no problem with refoulment – the extradited are extradited to a place the home country would not have agreed to extradite.
            Where was the Court to object to that!

            Anyway, is France a safe country? Why not just send them back from whence they came in accordance with International Law?

    3. Nigl
      November 16, 2023

      +1

    4. Lifelogic
      November 16, 2023

      Reported in the Telegraph today.

      “Rishi Sunak and Jeremy Hunt plan to cut inheritance tax at Autumn Statement
      The pair have discussed lowering the rate from 40pc, a move that Treasury officials have deemed would not be inflationary.” How did they officials come to that conclusion?

      Yet another error Suank if you are doing something with IHT (after they ratted on the £1m threshold promise for 15 years so far and even inflated away the £325k to more like £200k in real terms now) they should scrap it completely with immediate effect. A move from 40% to 30 % is just pathetic. Anyway Labour will restore it in less than 12 months. Also say which bits of the vast government waste will be cut to pay for it. So much to choose from. Or just ditching the Net Zero religion would cut inflation and get some growth.

      There are far better taxes to cut that reduce inflation directly though like vat, insurance tax, fuel taxes though, double taxation of landlord interest that pushes up rents hugely, rip off stamp duty, council taxes…

      1. Mickey Taking
        November 16, 2023

        Two years ago only 27,000 estates paid IHT, so it seems fair to say IHT is not inflationary compared to 56m people in England and around 67m+ in UK.

        1. Lifelogic
          November 16, 2023

          Nonsense, if taxes are reduced and government expenditure is not it is going to be inflationary. A lot going to a few is little different to the same sum spread over many people from an inflation point of view.

          What is really needed is to cut out the vast waste in government and cut taxes especially sales taxes like vat, stamp duty, IPT insurance tax, fuel duty, landfill taxes, carbon taxes, flight duty… that hike prices.

    5. Peter
      November 16, 2023

      LL,

      Yes, Sunak will fail but he must, by now, expect to do so anyway. The reaction to the judgement will have no impact. It is just talk.

      As I mentioned (but not published here) ECHR and refoulement are just useful excuses for failure and reasons to kick issues into the long grass. The public are now well aware of that and Braverman also stated there was no intention to deliver.

      Lots of centrist no-marks lined up in safe seats in the hope of rebuilding the Conservative Party as it was under Cameron. Little chance of that happening though.

      Many experienced Ministers resigned in November. An explanation given is it would allow six months before a May election so they would avoid ACOBA scrutiny before a new job in the private sector. I think Sunak will try to hang on for as long as possible – certainly longer than six months. ACOBA is toothless anyway. So politicians can just ignore its findings or make lame promises/statements as usually happens.

  3. Will
    November 16, 2023

    As was made clear in recent Telegraph articles , it is not just Sunac who is opposing the elimination of the small boats, there is massive institutional opposition within both the Home Office and wider public sector to any initiative that might reduce immigration. This government has completely failed to gain control of a civil service that is not prepared to implement any policy that it disagrees with.

    1. Jumeirah
      November 16, 2023

      Yes Civil Servants – 3 people doing one person’s job! It’s called ‘The Dog walking Share Scheme.’
      By the way: Renton is right – it has nothing to do with ECHR! Withdraw from that organisation and institute our own Rules through our own Parliament and Judiciary in order to reflect the views of the British people through our own elected Members of Parliament and then rightly or wrongly we have only ourselves to blame. BUT if there is something wrong and it doesn’t work on first draft we can change it through an Act of Parliament and Parliamentary Vote.

      1. Lynn Atkinson
        November 16, 2023

        +1 the point about Sovereignty and Freedom is that when you make a mistake (any there will always be mistakes) you have the power to change your opinion and actions.

    2. Mickey Taking
      November 16, 2023

      Delay and obfuscation allows the legal and illegals to keep arriving.
      THAT is the policy ..be in no uncertainty.

    3. Lifelogic
      November 16, 2023

      Indeed a good article from an anonymous Civil Servant – yesterday I think. Exposing their agenda to block, delay, inconvenience and obstruct as much as they can in this area rather like the now clearlyvpolitical courts.

      1. Lynn Atkinson
        November 16, 2023

        There is a grouping being built up in the U.K., fit young men, I wonder what the magic number is that they are aiming for before they have achieved the ‘tipping point’?
        Anyway, MP need to understand they are in the front line. None of us can help them and Gove got an inkling of what that will be like.

      2. oldwulf
        November 16, 2023

        @Lifelogic

        I am wondering if the UK judges and/or the Whitehall blob are guilty of Treason ?

        1. Lynn Atkinson
          November 16, 2023

          Long since! Have you read Treason at Maastricht?

    4. glen cullen
      November 16, 2023

      Agree – and the assessment of refugees is a red herring, it doesn’t matter if they’re processed in a week, month or year as none will ever be returned ….therefore its in the governments interests to draw out the process period for as long as possible, otherwise the numbers given refugee status would be in there millions and in plain sight

      1. Lifelogic
        November 16, 2023

        Exactly. More legal routes is another red herring.

  4. Lynn Atkinson
    November 16, 2023

    Time for Ms Braverman and anyone else whose head is held up by a backbone to oust this fake PM and his rotten cabinet.
    Not a minute to waste it 5 minutes to midnight.

    1. Bill B.
      November 16, 2023

      Suella B.’s wasn’t the letter I was hoping we would hear about today.

      1. Lynn Atkinson
        November 16, 2023

        Patience. Timing is everything.

        1. Bill B.
          November 16, 2023

          How much time do you think we have, Lynn?

          1. Lynn Atkinson
            November 16, 2023

            😂 a few days! She will make a speech from the back benches, she might put the knife in then – Howe-style but with evidence and justice.
            The legislation presented better cover all the bases once they get a proper Tory Government, If they don’t get that then of course it makes no difference the Whitewash or as one of JR’s followers said ‘the Bye-election’.
            Hexham (my constituency) apparently has an 80% chance of turning Red (local newspaper today). The Tories are in bloody big trouble. They need to be sending unequivocal messages to Nr 10.

    2. Peter Wood
      November 16, 2023

      Yes, well Ms Braverman needs to publish her ‘written agreement’; that’d sink Sunak in an instant, on the grounds of stupidity alone!
      Sunak is following a plan, the ineffective new Foreign Secretary is warmly welcomed in Berlaymont, of course, and no doubt closer alignment and support will soon be proposed, surreptitiously. Davos Man is doing what he’s told, and then go off to live the good life in California and Zurich.

    3. Dave Andrews
      November 16, 2023

      Conservative Campaign Headquarters don’t want people with a backbone, when it comes to candidates to parachute into constituencies. They want puppets.

      1. acorn
        November 16, 2023

        That’s the problem Dave. We are increasingly electing poorer quality MPs. Most of the current batch make syntax illiterate speeches and are economically enumerate; couldn’t operate a checkout at Tesco. Then we make them Ministers of multi-billion pound spending departments. Sixteen Housing Ministers since 2010 defines precisely what is wrong with UK PLC. Sadly, there is no mechanism available to change this state of affaires; the UK has no defining constitution to fall back on.

        1. Lynn Atkinson
          November 16, 2023

          All chosen by the Party Machines. Choose your own candidates! People for whom you want to fight!

    4. Roy Grainger
      November 16, 2023

      The majority of Conservative MPs don’t want him ousted and so he won’t be. MPs like Braverman who are happy to continue being in the Conservative Party are enabling this situation. Time for them to leave.

    5. IanT
      November 16, 2023

      It’s well gone 12 Lynn. We already have another day and there’s no point in further changes at the top. The ship is badly holed and sinking fast. There is no point in trying to change Captain again, it’s way too late for that.

      Sunak was the last roll of the dice for this Government and it’s not worked. He seems to have given up on the so-called ‘red wall’ and believes withdrawing behind a blue one will minimise losses – from a complete wipe-out to just a really bad one. I have news for him – there are plenty of ‘red-wall’ voters in the South too. What is the point of giviing us a choice between a ‘yellow’ Lib Dem Party – or a ‘blue’ one?

    6. Hope
      November 16, 2023

      Absolutely. However, Heseltine makes clear the extreme remainer left is back in charge. Sunak knows his next Rwanda charade will be subject to further legal challenges and will blame the courts etc. ECHR must be dealt with. We had Cameron, May, Johnson all clamming ECHR must be scrapped and None of them had any intention to do so. We had Cameron saying British bill of rights, recently Raab was working on similar venture than scrapped. It is All a ploy to con the public. 4,000 EU laws still in existence the only ones got rid of were obsolete! Clegg denounced there were many EU laws on national TV and ridiculed the notion of an EU army, which this bunch has given EU control over our military through PESCO! Dishonest liars spring to mind.

      I want Clegg and Osborne to be made Lords and given jobs in cabinet perhaps people will then wake up to the reality of this dishonest party.

    7. jerry
      November 16, 2023

      @Lynn Atkinson; Replacing a leader ‘5 minutes to midnight’ would be seen, correctly, by the majority of the electorate as a desperate move and an admission by a Party that they are not fit for government.

      If Sunak is replaced as Party leader that will be 6 leaders in 7 years for pity sake, that’s a Party not even fit for opposition!…

      1. glen cullen
        November 16, 2023

        Reform it is !

        1. MFD
          November 16, 2023

          I agree there Glen, we true Brits must punish the BLOB and poloticians.

        2. jerry
          November 16, 2023

          @glen cullen; Indeed for those who want a Starmer Government, but can not bring themselves to actually vote for him, Reform it is!

          Different vote, same end…

        3. Lynn Atkinson
          November 16, 2023

          Don’t waste the petrol or time voting then. You don’t want yo solve the problem, you want to virtue signal.
          If you wanted to solve the problem you would get the people you want into Parliament.

          1. glen cullen
            November 16, 2023

            If you continue voting Tory, then they’ll believe everything they’re doing is correct and it what the voter wants

          2. XY
            November 16, 2023

            That’s completely the wrong attitude. That’s what maintains the status quo via the FPTP system.

            If you’re not going to vote, then how does it hurt if instead you vote for something you actually want? Instead of Project Fear getting you voting against something you’re afraid of?

            There are no mainstream parties I want to see in parliament. All 5 of the mainland parties in the HoC are utterly useless. Voting for Reform is not a wasted vote – and the more people who see that, the more true it becomes.

          3. jerry
            November 17, 2023

            @XY; Voting Reform is as much a wasted vote as voting MRLP, indeed the latter is perhaps more worthy, at least they campaign on the fact that they ARE the Joke, taking the ‘vino’ out of our hopeless electoral system, whilst giving us all an election night laugh.

    8. Timaction
      November 16, 2023

      ………………………..and anyone else who’s head is held up by a backbone. Brilliant, just brilliant………..

      I read today in the Telegraph that there is a least 4 or 5 other treaties/laws/conventions apart from the ECHR and Human Rights that prohibit the removal of the economic, illegal immigrants from the UK. So unless we’re being PLAYED why didn’t any of her Majesties’ eminent lawyers no or foresee this? Can kicking down the road, alive and well and no change from the Uni Party. We need REFORM or nothing is going to change. Mass legal Immigration figures are out next week. Nail and coffin springs to mind for the Tory’s.

  5. Lifelogic
    November 16, 2023

    Some horrendous post covid “vaccine” programme excess death figures still continuing and expected to continue further it seems (circa 20% even for people under 25) these from the US life insurance industry and other sources. Mainly heart failures, circulatory and liver issues it seems. See Dr John Campbell’s latest video. Yet the NHS still pushing the “vaccines” and even to pregnant women. Why no proper investigation etc ed? Why so little media interest in these hundreds of thousands of excess deaths?

    Reply The excess deaths may be the result of a number of causes.

    1. Lynn Atkinson
      November 16, 2023

      JR, no excess deaths in countries which were not ‘vaccinated’.

      1. jerry
        November 16, 2023

        @Lynn Atkinson; Indeed, just an excess of Covid deaths…

        1. Lynn Atkinson
          November 16, 2023

          Nop not a excess of covid deaths either – look at for instance, the South African Figures. Fewer Covid deaths pro-rata than the U.K. and no excess deaths thereafter.

          1. Lifelogic
            November 17, 2023

            Indeed.

          2. jerry
            November 17, 2023

            @Lynn Atkinson; What you mean is, if no one counts Covid deaths then there has been no official Covid deaths.

            Even North Kora had excess deaths from CV19, and they are a locked-in society, when Kim says jump people jump, and then ask was that high enough, should we jump again dear leader?!

      2. Mickey Taking
        November 16, 2023

        nonsense – are you really saying Covid claimed zero deaths in those countries – hence no excess deaths?

        1. Lynn Atkinson
          November 16, 2023

          The ‘excess deaths’ are 200 per day in the U.K. atm. That is 200 more than is normal per day – for years, and excess deaths are increasing. We are speaking of the number of deaths per day in excess of normal AFTER the Covid Panic was over.
          You should look it up. Read the actuaries reports.

          1. Lifelogic
            November 17, 2023

            Indeed and post all the Covid death brought forwards it should be well below normal levels not above.

          2. jerry
            November 17, 2023

            @Lynn Atkinson; The problem is, conspiracy theorists are not taking comorbidities into account, which is a bit strange when conspiracy theorists were claiming pre existing comorbidities were the cause of the excess deaths, not the CV19 virus…

    2. Everhopeful
      November 16, 2023

      I wonder what those other causes could be?
      Loss of natural immunity…caused by government lock downs.
      Stress caused by government actions since 2019?
      5G imposed by government and frantically rolled out DURING the lock downs ( it is said)
      Windmills?
      Poverty?
      Cold?
      Fear?
      Noise and disruption.
      Add all that together and chuck in a new, untested medical procedure and I reckon one has a fair idea of WHO caused it if not exactly WHAT.
      BUT I saw my husband after one of those jabs…and I really thought he was dying. And he has not enjoyed good health since. My sister too was very poorly. Plenty of other family/friend reports too.

    3. Jackie
      November 16, 2023

      Rubbish. There is a huge amount of evidence now which proves beyond reasonable doubt that excess deaths are due to the extremely dangerous covid vaccines which have also caused hideous injuries to huge numbers of people.

      You’re out of touch with reality and looking the other way as usual.

      1. jerry
        November 16, 2023

        Jackie “There is a huge amount of evidence”

        Never herd of comorbidities?
        The same comorbidities some claimed were the true cause of death rather than CV19 virus, ho-hmm…

        1. Lynn Atkinson
          November 16, 2023

          Heart attacks in 5year old children? Footballers falling over on the pitch. Come on!

          1. jerry
            November 17, 2023

            @Lynn Atkinson; Such deaths have happened well before 2020, have you really never read about children (even babies) having to have heart transplants, or open heart sugary. Come on, stop clutching at straws!

    4. Sharon
      November 16, 2023

      I read in TCW, yesterday, an Australian airline pilot, who lost his job because he refused the Covid jab… had been collating cancelled flights – worldwide – due to pilot illness. They call the calls 7700 for Mayday, pilot incapacitation. It’s gone up a ridiculous amount since 2021.

      1. jerry
        November 16, 2023

        @Sharon; Common Flu, in fact many common illnesses, have seen an increase in incapacitation since the end of the Pandemic due to our personal immune systems not having their usual naturally (socially) occurring immune top-ups since March 2020, hence why health officials have been pushing at risk groups, not just the elderly or already sick, to have booster inoculations (besides the Covid Vaccine). Commercial pilots have pretty strict rules on when to report sick, even if sickness is just suspected, so unless we know the reason (illness) the raw data on cancelled flights is utterly meaningless.

        Sounds like an (ex?) pilot has a grudge, and has found a willing audience of ill-informed conspiracy theorists…

    5. BOF
      November 16, 2023

      Reply to reply
      Pure co-incidence that excess deaths coincide with the roll out of the jabs in 2021, not from Covid in 2020! Particularly evident in Australia and NZ where there was almost zero Covid due to those countries being sealed off.

      I have just been told by his widow of another victim I got to know well in hospital. He fought a long battle but died a few days ago for no apparent reason. Fit and healthy before AZ got him.

      1. Mickey Taking
        November 16, 2023

        no apparent reason? Are the Police investigating?

    6. Wanderer
      November 16, 2023

      Reply to reply. That’s true, but the excess deaths exist and it’s a pity we are not investigating them. Instead millions are being spent on a so-called Covid Inquiry.

      1. Lifelogic
        November 16, 2023

        The Covid inquiry that is clearly a very expensive rather sick joke.

    7. Donna
      November 16, 2023

      Reply to reply

      Yes, they may be. So why doesn’t the Government want to investigate the cause/s? They may be cause/s which could be addressed if they knew what they were.

      The implication of the refusal to investigate is that they know the cause but don’t want to admit it.

      1. Lifelogic
        November 17, 2023

        Exactly.

    8. Jim+Whitehead
      November 16, 2023

      Reply to reply, Well past time to show the due urgency to find out what the cause is, not to show contempt for the only other MP with the courage to speak out on what concerns the public.

    9. Lifelogic
      November 16, 2023

      To reply, indeed they may have other causes such as more more suicides, more alcohol, delayed healthcare treatments from poor healthcare systems with circa 8 million on waiting lists, people unable to heat their homes due to net zero energy costs… But they are worldwide, worse in countries and regions with higher vaccination rates and in timing terms they seems start when the vaccines were rolled out and to different age groups in different countries. In Australia, New Zealand this was largely before Covid arrived too. So by a long way covid vaccines are the most likely culprit. Very easy to determine to what extent it is the vaccines just analyse the deaths in the vaccinated and unvaccinated by cause of death, age, gender, vaccine type, number & status, had they had covid before or after the vaccines…

      But many countries are hiding and disguising these statistics which is very suspicious in itself. Very few governments are doing serious studies to find out the truth. 20% up in the USA for people 15-25. I would be amazed if it is not mainly the “vaccines”. There were even given to people with no need of them as young so not at sig. risk and even given to people who already had had Covid which gave them better immunity already.

      I would be amazed if the vaccines are not the main cause given the stats. I have looked at. The figures are horrendous and in all age groups. Must be saving annuity providers and the state pension coffers loads but costing life insurers rather a lot. Though often the same businesses.

    10. beresford
      November 16, 2023

      Reply to reply: But isn’t ‘may’ enough to suspend the promotion of a procedure which now undeniably has negligible benefit due to the benign nature of current variants?

    11. Mickey Taking
      November 16, 2023

      observing this Government possibly accounts for high suicides?

    12. Nigl
      November 16, 2023

      And they are not horrendous. In terms of the millions vaccinated a speck of dust as a percentage.

    13. Lifelogic
      November 16, 2023

      That is 20% up on normal I meant.

    14. Barbara
      November 16, 2023

      Reply to reply: Well, we’ll never find out if we don’t investigate, will we?

    15. Peter Gardner
      November 16, 2023

      Excess deaths are by definition from all causes. The data on deaths from Covid vaccines shows extremely low risk and not excessive by vaccine standards – death is nearly always a possible side-effect of a vaccine. The case for Covid vaccines was one of ‘balance of risk’. Astra Zeneca was withdrawn because others proved to be even safer and when you have a choice, obviously you go for the safer vaccines.

      1. Lifelogic
        November 16, 2023

        Indeed but they got the balance of risk completely wrong. Especially for the healthy young and those who had already had covid where there was never any “benefit” to be gained. Even if they had been effective and very safe.

      2. Lynn Atkinson
        November 16, 2023

        No vaccine was on offer, just the gene-therapy.

    16. Peter Gardner
      November 16, 2023

      Excess deaths are by definition from all causes. The data on deaths from Covid vaccines show extremely low risk and not excessive by vaccine standards – death is nearly always a possible side-effect of a vaccine. The case for Covid vaccines was one of ‘balance of risk’. Astra Zeneca was withdrawn because others proved to be even safer and when you have a choice, obviously you go for the safer vaccines.
      There have been 14 deaths in Australia out of more than 70 million vaccinations, none in 2022 or 2023. I haven’t the figures for UK but I would expect them to be similar, adjusted for population size. No doubt you can find the figures for yourself from MHRA or ONS – not the quack Campbell.

      1. Lynn Atkinson
        November 16, 2023

        I bet you have the full range of jabs? Excess deaths of 200 per day as opposed to before the jabs are by definition NOT from all causes. Why would 200 mostly young and previously healthy people per day suddenly die after the Covid jabs as opposed to before?
        You need to read the actuaries reports. Sit down before you do.

    17. MFD
      November 16, 2023

      But I doubt it Sir!

  6. Simon Ramery
    November 16, 2023

    In time I think Rishi Sunak will be known as one of the worst politicians the conservative party has ever had. He will be known for being the person who spent vast sums of money unnecessarily, failed to claw back any fraudulent activities, and then oversaw an increase in tax to peacetime records. Other than this, he has simply achieved nothing as he has no moral framework or backbone to make tough decisions. If the conservatives want to try and reduce the decimation they are going to get at the ballot box he should be ousted now. As we now see, a week is currently a very long time in politics so there is plenty of time to reconnect with voters, providing the government is to the right and starts making some bold decisions, and not in the centre, where everyone else is and where nothing really changes or gets done. Inaction is not an option.

    1. Mickey Taking
      November 16, 2023

      ‘there is plenty of time to reconnect with voters’ – Really?
      I beg to differ. With each passing day and shambles the baton gets passed to Starmer or whoever the other lot of idiots elect.

    2. Bloke
      November 16, 2023

      Well-stated Simon. Many agree.

    3. Hope
      November 16, 2023

      Snake is bringing down inflation that he caused and agreed to pay for through Treasury to BOE as JR repeatedly pointed out.

    4. Lifelogic
      November 16, 2023

      Very stiff even recent competition from Heath, Major, Cameron, May, Boris, Heseltine, Soubry types and all the traitors who tried to block a real Brexit (and largely succeeded)… I excuse Truss as she never had a chance the Sunak supporting knives were out from day one.

  7. Everhopeful
    November 16, 2023

    Does he actually want to stop them though?
    When these things happen I always wonder why the minister in question doesn’t just stay on and insist…be a thorn in the flesh? Get their own way?
    Impossible I suppose and not good for future prospects.
    Such a shame…Suella seemed like a light in the wilderness.

    Still…”The New Conservatives” is what I have hoped for for ages!

    1. The Prangwizard
      November 16, 2023

      A New Conservative party is urgent. A group with that name in the completely failed existing party will just die with it.

      The country needs bravery, not simply more of the same old ideas to bring about change in the existing elites. It won’t work and it will take years and if successful will be too late anyway.

  8. Everhopeful
    November 16, 2023

    It seems obvious now ( as people suspected) that the coup was all about handing us lock, stock and barrel over to globalists.
    Many horrific medical plans are even being reported on the treacherous MSM.

    1. Michelle
      November 16, 2023

      A long term plan carried out incrementally so as not to alarm.
      Many way back though did see what was going on and of course had to be branded as whatever happened to be the socially and professionally ostracising ‘ism/phobia’ of the day.
      An A K Chesterton pamphlet I came across years ago spelt out very clearly the aims of globalists/UN right down to how our children would be indoctrinated in the classroom and via media (along the lines of Marcuse, if memory serves, One Dimensional Man).

      I read all sorts from every perspective going and as yet haven’t seen much evidence to the contrary to blow Chesterton’s beliefs out of the water in actual real terms. The establishment and media can claim all sorts of things are and aren’t happening but they do not always match what is truly going on.

  9. Renton
    November 16, 2023

    Could you read what the Supreme Court said before you criticise it. The judges upheld Parliament’s supremacy against the government’s attempts to undermine the law. NOTHING to do with the ECHR

    1. Lynn Atkinson
      November 16, 2023

      It’s a Treaty! Signed by the PM under Royal Prerogative power.
      If this Treaty is illegal because Parliament had no say does that apply to the Treaty of Rome too? And if not, why not?

      1. glen cullen
        November 16, 2023

        Excellent Point

        1. hefner
          November 16, 2023

          but absolutely meaningless as the Head of the UK Government has under Royal Prerogative the power to sign international treaties.

          So, are you guys to stop this RP? How are you going to do that? When do you go and man the barricades?

          1. Lynn Atkinson
            November 16, 2023

            You can’t use the RP to destroy the RP – that’s what The European Treaties did.
            It’s also illegal in international law for any treaty surrendering territory by treaty. Because compulsion is assumed.
            The complaint is that there are no barricades, we are allowed none.

      2. Denis Cooper
        November 17, 2023

        https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05855/

        “Parliament’s role in ratifying treaties”

    2. Dave Andrews
      November 16, 2023

      The Supreme Court will have made their judgement with consideration of the UK’s international treaties, including the one we have with the ECHR.

    3. beresford
      November 16, 2023

      As I understood it they were concerned that those migrants whose asylum claim failed might be sent home. What do the judges imagine SHOULD happen to those whose claims are baseless? More bizarrely, Sunak has proposed modifying the agreement so that those whose claims are baseless can only be sent to the UK.

      For my part, I think that there is far too much concern over the welfare of those coming here to defraud us. They have free will and can always choose not to get into a dinghy and stay in the safe country of France.

  10. Mary M.
    November 16, 2023

    Talking of international agreements, today’s Facts4EU.Org ‘Dr. WHO is coming for YOU’ sets out clearly how the WHO Pandemic Treaty would remove not only our country’s sovereignty but also sovereignty over our own bodies. Those of us who preferred to rely on our aeons-old immune systems rather than take the covid ‘vaccination’ still at its experimental stage will not have a choice once this Treaty is signed up to.
    We have to the end of this month.

    1. Everhopeful
      November 16, 2023

      It is terrifying.
      I wonder whether politicians have any personal worries about it?
      Can they not imagine what another lockdown would do to this country?
      Do they really want their families injected with goodness know what by decree?
      Maybe they would be exempt?
      I read about some jabs that were trialled in Africa some years back with allegedly dire results.

    2. Sharon
      November 16, 2023

      Mary M re WHO treaty.
      There are lots of concerned people… I’ve forwarded several emails, signed petitions, when requested by a couple of organisations who are deeply concerned too!

      There’s nothing, that I can see, about it in the MSM!

    3. Iain Moore
      November 16, 2023

      Indeed, we are being given run around on border control because of the obligations our politicians have signed us up to, which you might have thought was a very big warning to them to do everything they can to preserve our sovereignty , but no they rush to sign it away as fast as they can. What didn’t they understand about Brexit? They are a menace and a danger to us.

    4. Lifelogic
      November 16, 2023

      Indeed this is an appalling WHO treaty countries should have nothing to do with it. But Rishi clearly intents to sign up. The WHO got almost everything wrong with Covid.

    5. David+L
      November 16, 2023

      Both my GP and a Research Cardiologist have told me that it is only the individual who can decide what treatment is applied to their own bodies. In the words of the latter “Anything else is contrary to medical ethics.” I’m very concerned at the lack of interest being shown by so many MP’s in the implications of the Pandemic Treaty which is such a fundamental change in our rights.
      On a related subject which has also been ignored by parliamentarians, the most vital wording that should apply to every treatment recommended by a doctor is “First, do no harm.” This seems to have faded somewhat over the last few years in inverse proportion to the profits accrued by some well-placed corporations and individuals.

      1. Lifelogic
        November 16, 2023

        +1. And it should be properly informed consent not government and big Pharma lies and propaganda.

    6. hefner
      November 16, 2023

      Please tell me, how is the new WHO treaty different from the 1984 Syracuse Principles? If you don’t know how to answer you’ll just show how you have been taken over by the very poor arguments put together by Ben Philips.

      1. Hat man
        November 16, 2023

        ‘Under the Siracusa Principles, Hefner, public health emergencies allow for measures that restrict human rights only to the extent they are “necessary” ‘(Opiniojuris 24-2-2021). But that leaves open who decides what’s necessary. In 2020 Sweden decided one way, Britain another way. If the UN/WHO get their treaty adopted, that will no longer be possible: every nation’s government will be signed up to whatever measures the WHO want. I believe very few colleagues, on either side of the House of Commons, understand that they are about to allow Parliamentary sovereignty over public health to be thrown away. Unless the government calls in its earlier approval of the Treaty measures, and seeks more time to consider the position, that will be the outcome.

  11. Everhopeful
    November 16, 2023

    I believe that several backbenchers think the ruling should be ignored.
    Which seems pretty sensible to me, especially since the one skill govt.s excel in is ignoring things that don’t suit!
    And strangely the PM Says he is willing to “revisit legal frameworks’ regarding the entire mess.

    Did anyone even dream the court would rule otherwise?I was under the impression it had been specifically set up by Mr B for occasions such as these. To force through a dystopian left wing agenda.
    It should have been instantly dismantled by an incoming, huge majority conservative government!

  12. DOM
    November 16, 2023

    You can almost see our nation crumbling away before your very eyes. As a democrat I am all in favour of people voting to destroy their homeland

    1. glen cullen
      November 16, 2023

      hearhear ….we need a cromwell

      1. Mickey Taking
        November 16, 2023

        No thank you, the country is full of enough misery without a Cromwell joining in!

      2. Lynn Atkinson
        November 16, 2023

        Probably the greatest ever Briton. The only man to have refused the throne.

  13. Mick
    November 16, 2023

    Tell you what stuff the Supreme Court we Voted the tories in to protect us and our borders these judges who sit in there ivory towers haven’t a bloody clue about the real world , there’s a big clue in the phase illegal immigrants they shouldn’t be here, so instead of the border patrol force giving them a taxi service to our shores take them straight to a airport and fly them away to the Ascension Islands they won’t be missed because there sneaking into GB so sneak them out it’s not rocket science

    1. hefner
      November 16, 2023

      There is only one Ascension Island and its inhabitants are mostly UK and US citizens working on contracts. There is no indigenous population there and people working there have to leave the island once their contract is over, ie there is no ´right of abode’.
      Obviously something that Priti P. and others have never even tried to check before making ‘wonderfully meaningless’
      (ie incredibly stupid) declarations.

      1. Denis Cooper
        November 16, 2023

        Unfortunately for some reason Sir John has chosen to vaporise my contribution about Ascension Island.

        Which is a great pity, as that is a far better option than a new treaty with Rwanda, despite your naysaying.

  14. Sea_Warrior
    November 16, 2023

    I’m sticking with my prediction that Sunak and his fellow-travellers will soon have the Conservatives polling at 15% – quite an achievement given that it wasn’t so long ago that the party looked strong, with an 80-seat majority.
    Yesterday’s press conference was fairly good, with Sunak showing a sense of urgency that is often missing. But ’emergency legislation’ should be passable in a matter of weeks and the flights to Rwanda then need to start immediately – no waiting until Spring.
    And the government must also acknowledge the disaster that is that is the sky-high level of legal migration. Let me state the obvious: this is the reason why so many of our young can’t find a place to rent or, better, to buy. No wonder they look to Starmer’s Marxists for political inspiration rather than to the ‘Conservatives’. The number of visas being issued must be savagely-cut – and that shouldn’t require anything more than a directive from the approriate minister.

  15. MPC
    November 16, 2023

    Your final sentence summarises precisely what little Sunak has undertaken to do and how it will not work.

  16. Old Albion
    November 16, 2023

    I’m sick of this pathetic/incompetent rabble called The Government. Go to the country now. Let Labour take over and wreck us further. Eventually the public will see the uniparty for what they are and perhaps drop their blind loyalty to a Blue or Red rosette.

  17. Frances
    November 16, 2023

    The boat people are a problem. Its an invasion of criminal young males who escaped… France. Legal migrants have many obligations and visas to get. They dont get any benefits either.

  18. Frances
    November 16, 2023

    Dump the ECHR. I know its entangled with Ireland but too bad. No agreement with the EU should subject us to the ECJ the EUs political court. What other countries seem to do is do what they want and pay the fine.

    1. glen cullen
      November 16, 2023

      +1

  19. Donna
    November 16, 2023

    So Suella was telling the truth: Sunak refused to make the Rwanda policy as watertight as possible and didn’t have a Plan B.

    You’d be forgiven for thinking that Sunak was put in place by people who wanted to utterly destroy the Not-a-Conservative-Party. And the pathetic rabble sitting beside and behind him on the green benches are just letting him do it.

    Lee Anderson is right …. turn them around and send them straight back to France.

  20. Bingle
    November 16, 2023

    The small boats plan is to stop them at Dover. Given that is where they end up, clearly the plan is working.

    Mr Sunak has plans for everything and if these do not work he will devise other plans.

    Be aware that for these plans to work, they must remain secret.

  21. Michelle
    November 16, 2023

    Hands up all those who truly believed we would see flights to Rwanda.
    Let’s imagine the court ruled differently yesterday. What then?
    Well a few vegan, middle class left wing liberal kids can hold up the system to ‘just stop oil’ so what chance of deportation when you know many more of the same ilk will set to disrupting the process.
    If an article I read some months back has any credence, then such a deportation was stopped by a crew of the “no borders, no one is illegal, no nations” sect in Scotland. They don’t do irony and easily swap to the placards for other people’s rights to nation and no incursions by others onto their sacred land!!!
    We would have to assume that our political establishment would hold firm and deal with these people (aka paid rabble-rousers) and pigs can fly.
    Then of course what would our ‘friends’ abroad think of us. Not least what on earth would Gary Linneker have to say!!

  22. Michelle
    November 16, 2023

    On the issue of Suella Braverman being given the sack and lambasted everywhere because of her truthful comments on the Met.Police, well, well what short memories many have.
    The Met Police have been accused of all sorts, by many of those now behaving as if Braverman had committed a sin of biblical proportions, when actually it’s her job to criticise. Her sin of course being brave enough to say what the man on the Clapham Omnibus thinks. The force has had accusations thrown at it of the usual ‘racists’ to harbouring sex offenders in their own ranks . They were accused of favouritism over the policing of a vigil attended for a rape victim. Accused by many of the sort screaming for Braverman’s head on a plate for her accusations.
    There is a certain lady elevated to the House of Lords, who accused the London Fire Brigade of similar. No really big fuss was made over that and it would be unthinkable that she should be hounded.

    The hypocrisy smells so bad it makes me nauseous.

  23. acorn
    November 16, 2023

    Times Radio’s “Rosie Wright with Early Breakfast” is worth a listen at 39 mins 40 sec in. Immigration Lawyer wants to know why Border Force, MI5 and MI6 can’t catch the people smugglers who have been working out of Calais for the last twenty years!

    Locking-up asylum seekers to put people smugglers out of business, is the equivalent of locking up drug addicts to put the drug dealers out of business.

    1. beresford
      November 16, 2023

      Or the equivalent of criminalising kerb crawling in order to reduce the incidence of prostitution. The migrants create the market, and they know what they are doing is wrong.

    2. Denis Cooper
      November 16, 2023

      http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2023/11/08/the-us-the-uk-and-euro-area-diverge-in-their-approaches/#comment-1418231

      “… tidying up I came across an article in the Evening Standard headlined:

      “Elite squad targets the gangs behind people smuggling”

      That was on September 6 2001, and yesterday, twenty-two years later … “

  24. Iain Moore
    November 16, 2023

    So another trip on the merry-go-round, more of the legal circus, more anarchy on our borders . Great, just what we want from our Government !

    When will you politicians understand the problem is the 1951 Convention, and if you don’t want the ruination of our country then you have to deal with it. By 2050 the population of Africa will be in the order of 2.5 to 3 billion , what hope do we have of accommodating asylum seekers when having to deal with the numbers coming from a population like that?

  25. Ian B
    November 16, 2023

    Sir John
    The laws as they are created and administered by the ECHR are not compatible with a free sovereign democracy. They are bureaucratic contrived laws on the Napoleonic principles. They grant rights, by definition to grant something they right was not there in the first place. There democracy doesn’t get to define right and wrong.
    The free sovereign ‘democracies’ of the World primarily have English Law as their legislative principles. That means the only things that are illegal are those that are defined by democratic process from a Countries Legislators.
    Seemingly too subtle for the Conservative Government to comprehend(Democracy), they allow themselves and us to be ruled by those that are un-elected and un-accountable, rather than the UK having a full functioning Parliament of its own.

  26. Bryan Harris
    November 16, 2023

    I’ll repeat what I wrote yesterday:

    The PM’s pledges and intentions are worth nothing, as evidenced by the Home Secretary’s resignation letter.
    WE should stop expecting the PM and HMG to work for our interests because it is so clear that is not their intention.
    It’s not that they have failed, they have been most successful in doing what they wanted to do.
    The time for pleading with the PM to do the right things has well passed, with no real indication that he will do the right things, unless forced to do so. 
    The drama and opera will continue to distract us all from the treachery still unfolding.

    The PM is a charlatan and has no intention of making things better

  27. Berkshire Alan
    November 16, 2023

    They say a the first sign of madness is to repeat the same action again and again, but to expect a different result each time !
    Much talk about Rwanda and the barge, but combined these two establishments will only take one weeks illegals.
    I have long come to the conclusion that politicians of all Party’s do not have a clue, or even want to control our Borders and immigration, both legal and illegal.
    Just waiting for the 175,000 in Hotels and other Accommodation to be given in effect an amnesty under another name, then the waiting list can go back to zero for a couple of days, so it can be called a success.
    Meanwhile another 600,000 will enter legally in the next 12 months, and will be looking for houses to rent or buy, or perhaps to access benefits.
    Politicians do not seem to be able to do simple mathematics to understand, we do not have the housing or infrastructure for such an increase in our population.
    There I have put it as politely as I feel I can, as strong words seem to upset our Prime Minister !

  28. Mark J
    November 16, 2023

    The Government cannot just sit on its hands over this issue.

    Once again, I predict we will still be talking about this issue in another year (I said the same over a year ago, which has proven to be correct.)

    The can just keeps being kicked down the road, whilst the illegal population of the UK continues to rise year on year.

    I agree with what Isabelle Oakshott recently said – foreign homeless on our streets (Central London is particularly bad around the West End, Marble Arch, and even the back streets of Westminster) should be rounded up and deported. Many are clearly here illegally, beg on the streets and steal from local businesses (I’ve witnessed this on a couple of occasions) and it is the kindest thing to do for them, and us the taxpayer.

    We cannot just allow people to continue turning up in the UK because they feel like it, then expect endless handouts from the taxpayer – it really isn’t on, nor fair for taxpayers forced to pay for it.

    Current preductions by the Oxford Migration Observatory state that by 2040 we will see an official population of 80 million, over 100 million by 2060. However, I suspect we already have over 70 million here, when the number of illegal migrants is counted. Even the Government does not know the true extent of illegal migrants in the UK.

  29. Ian B
    November 16, 2023

    The bureaucrats in charge of the ECHR and the OHCHR, want to define human rights not with democratic oversite or actual situations but in line with personal ego. That is not how you create good Law. The first thing that happens with these diktats is they trash the rights of all others, those that are forced to carry the burden, those that are punished and become worse off as a consequence than those that get awarded and rewarded for being criminals.
    The UK can’t afford to look after its own poor, its own pensioners, as they are being forced to fund criminals, provide a better life to criminals than their own people that have contributed to society. How many of our pensioners our homeless are rewarded with a paid for roof of their heads, money in their pockets and even more ridiculous a State funded mobile phone.
    The current situation under this Conservative Government is that they are weak and refuse to do what they have been empowered and paid to do. That is Govern, defend freedoms, keep us safe and secure – make, amend and repeal laws that govern our lives. Handing their responsibilities to the unelected unaccountable outside of the UK is not government.

  30. XY
    November 16, 2023

    Yes to all our host wrote – which is pretty much exactly my own take on it, as posted here yesterday, except…

    That SB’s letter makes it clear that Sunak was made very well aware of the need for a fallback position, or perhaps not so much a “Plan B” as SB put it, it was more about cementing the legal framework in advance to prevent legal challenge, as an esssential component of Plan A.

    When he is made aware, via repeated contacts as SB says, what does that tell us? Only two/three possibilities:

    1. He is incompetent.
    2. He has a hidden agenda. He never wanted this to succeed.
    3. Both of the above.

    Choosing the course he is now set upon strongly suggests 2 (or 3). He must kn ow that the process of getting it through the HoL and ensuing legal action will not be done in this parliament. Many will be crying fould and labelling him a “WEF plant”. It’s difficult to disagree.

    Meanwhile, Reform UK is gaining ground rapidly. The policies on their web site are essentially a list of the plicies our host espouses here frequently (with a few interesting additions!).

  31. jerry
    November 16, 2023

    “She resigned because these promises were not kept. Downing Street has not contradicted these statements.”

    So it is now being suggested Braverman resigned, so why the need for the letter, why not (as I said in a earlier blog) not simply use her resignation speech to set out the record as she recalls. As I also suggested in that previous comment, those who write history can also rewrite the narrative…

    1. jerry
      November 16, 2023

      As for Downing Street has not contradicting statements, do we really have to get into an endless “She says; He says” media circus, both sides have now set out their side of events.

    2. Lynn Atkinson
      November 17, 2023

      They write a letter and have a resignation speech. If you have not written a letter how Dowd’s the Pm know you have resigned?

      1. jerry
        November 17, 2023

        @Lynn Atkinson; Nice try, but resignation letters are published at the time, not the day after…

        The letter is clearly dated 14th November 2023, and Suella Braverman also clearly states in the first paragraph that the PM asked her to leave; “Thank you for your phone call yesterday morning in which you asked me to leave government. While disappointing, this is for the best.”.

        That is clearly a sacking, a telephone call in the morning, from your boss, telling you not to bother turning up for work! By comparison, for example, the resignation letters from Thérèse Coffey and that of Nick Gibb both appeared on social media and in the media the same day as they resigned their posts.

        1. Lynn Atkinson
          November 17, 2023

          If JR says she resigned, she resigned. Her letter may be the last of a long stream along the lines of ‘unless you do what you promised to do, I resign’ then the PM writes ‘I’m not doing it, therefore goodbye’.
          In any case if she was sacked for holding the unelected PM to the Manifesto, that reflects on Nr 10 very badly – worse in fact.

          1. jerry
            November 18, 2023

            @Lynn Atkinson; “If JR says she resigned, she resigned.”

            You mean, what Braverman says in her own letter is irrelevant?! As I said, had she resigned rather than being sacked her *letter of resignation*, distinct from a letter of acknowledgement, would be in the publican domain and be dated no later than the 13th.

            Also we do not elect Prime Ministers in this country, the leader of the majority Party (usually) becomes PM, thus Sunak is as legitimate as Truss was, did you ever call-out Truss?

            In any case, if Braverman was holding the “unelected PM to the Manifesto”, then who was failing who, given she had direct responsibility, and the Rwanda policy pre dates Sunak (and Truss, for that matter), if you want to defend Braverman by attacking someone surely you need to put either Johnson or Patel in your sights.
            Whatever, I guess Love is blind…

  32. agricola
    November 16, 2023

    Rishi should have had a bullet proof plan B in place, ready to go on failure in the Supreme Court. I gave you one yesterday.
    If Rwanda was to be a threat more than a reality for all those in northern France, a breaker of illegal business plans, but found unnacceptable by the SC, then a new Rwanda has to be found. We have one in Ascention Island , population about 900 and a crown territory with a UK Govenor, based I believe in the Cape Verde Islands. The first 2000 could be shipped in the New Year. That would send a ripple through the camps over the Channel.
    My next point is that the ascendency of Parliament to the pinnacle of legal decision making, over any court or lawyer , home grown or foreign must be re-established.
    The Home Office’s 170,000 backlog of asylum claims must be dealt with urgently. An essential of any successfull claim should be identifiable country of origin and verifiable reason for the claimant being in danger. Identity is essential. Failures should be shipped as above, or given a free ticket to country of origin. Those sent to Ascension should after a year of road building be offered return to country of origin. Those that wish to stay could be chaneled into building a holiday complex to rival southern europe.

  33. agricola
    November 16, 2023

    Addendum.
    Going down Rishi’s route of law change and perpetual appeal to further failure I interpret as a different version of political long grass.

  34. Anthony
    November 16, 2023

    I hear from people who work for CCHQ that the legal issues are being deliberately spun out so that the illegal migration can be made a wedge issue at the GE.

    This has echos of the Cummings strategy showing up the establishment in 2019. But the Sunak version simply shows the government up as incompetent and impotent. The strategy of letting the court continually block the policy is a mistake.

  35. Roy Grainger
    November 16, 2023

    Sunak doesn’t want to stop the boats. All he wants is to spin out the court challenges until the election comes and his proposed next steps simply open up even more opportunities for court challenges. No-one will ever be sent to Rwanda.

  36. Bloke
    November 16, 2023

    Why is our law created in such a complicated muddle that even the highest-ranking specialists advising the government pass it to be enacted without knowing it is dud?

    Law should be clear, so that everyone it applies to knows what their powers to act and responsibilities are. The present process is entangled with nonsense like the HMRC tax code, generating immense waste.

    Lawyers, judges and others whose errant efforts cause vast expense, waste of valuable time and bad outcomes should be penalised for wrongdoing.

    No win No fee would at least be a better way of employing those wasters. We the taxpayers, forced to fund such idiots, want our money back!

    Meanwhile, another year-load of illegal entrants are allowed free access to our scarce resources while the UK waits in anticipation of yet another failure of its own law.

  37. Nigl
    November 16, 2023

    No 10s silence says it all. PM not to be believed or trusted. We have been saying it for months. Defenestration time.

  38. George Sheard
    November 16, 2023

    Hi John
    The prime minister will get his knighthood
    Will be a god among his own kind .
    He doesn’t want to stop the boats he’s one of them parliament is a place where the MP’S and government have their thoughts in other countries but that’s democracy the majority are becoming the minority . Time will come when MP’S will change our laws to laws of other countries and religions. Of this once great country
    then to see the future of the UK just look at Afghanistan or Palestine
    God help our children’s children.
    Sorry our god won’t be allowed.

  39. a-tracy
    November 16, 2023

    The only way I can see your government stopping the boats is to give the people determined to get here rail or ferry tickets, and that seems to be Labour’s intention, to make applications to get here more accessible for people from everywhere to fill in and facilitate the movement. A target is to clear people through the UK system faster so 80% or more can stay and then allocate them a good proportion of the new lower cost half buy half rent houses and apartments they will be building for them.

    The affordable housing estates popping up everywhere in my town are UGLY, with no planting, square brick boxes with tiny windows and no personality all crammed in. They could ask the builders for simple brick patterns, nice attractive coving, shrubs, and trees that could make an estate look better but not the ones where ‘social’ builders get involved; simple apartment blocks take over three years to build, and they put brick soul less pump stations right on the entrance of estates looking UGLY. We are promised we’ll get a lot more of this, and they’ll still be cheaper because they’re not acknowledging how much has already been done by Homes England.

    The posh private estates in the posh areas nearby get the clock towers and duck ponds (these pump stations could have been housed in something like that, but NO.. if people are getting lower-cost homes, they get what they’re given. Unfinished roads and high-banked pavements ruin people’s tyres on cars they can hardly afford to run, never mind buying new tyre replacements.

    Seeing what the people backing Sunak have done to your party is making me depressed. Seeing what the Unions are doing to punish people in the UK to change this government to give their members more money is frankly so transparent. I do not believe that railway workers haven’t had any rise in four years, and there’s no fightback from their employers; why not? Why don’t we hear the other end of this? We only hear the strike leaders’ comments.

  40. Bert+Young
    November 16, 2023

    Braverman may have suffered but there was obviously truth in her published letter ; exposing Sunak has now forced him to go public in his response to the Supreme Court’s decision . Allowing unelected bodies to to govern us and our way of life is totally wrong ; this is true in the management of our economy and in our practicing law . We do not want or can afford the direct and indirect cost of illegal immigration and the response in Europe now supports this . The ECHR is out of kilter with the weight of our public and elsewhere – it might as well now be disbanded . This is a dramatic change taking place – hopefully it will apply to the Chancellor’s coming pronouncement as well .

  41. hefner
    November 16, 2023

    So the ‘Precious Ridiculous’ of the HoC are going to pass a law to say that black is white, Rwanda is safe, and £140 m for zero migrant then an annual £10k to £20k per migrant (if any is ever sent there) is a good deal for the country.

    Anybody (willing ie not with head in a**e) can read about the present situation in Rwanda (paragraphs 79-94 on pages 29-35 of Wednesday 56-page judgment by the Supreme Court, [available on scribd.com]) and make their own mind.

    1. EU fan
      November 16, 2023

      Depends whether you prefer Parliament to be the Supreme power in the UK or the Supreme Court hefner.

      1. hefner
        November 17, 2023

        Are you not blowing a lot of hot air, EU fan?

        1. EU fan
          November 18, 2023

          Well dodged hef

  42. British Patriot
    November 16, 2023

    On the British Patriot Substack blog I have been saying for months that the Rwanda policy would be blocked by the courts, but unfortunately you refuse to allow links to it (although people can easily Google it).

    I have also been saying what the Supreme Court has made clear: leaving the ECHR on its own is NOT enough. I have also explained that the ‘refoulement’ issue is the main one that needs to be overcome. The main problems are our own (Blair imposed) Human Rights Act, as well as the Refugee Convention. These plus the ECHR, the Modern Slavery Act and a few others. Of course we should scrap these, but no doubt the marxists-in-wigs who masquerade as judges would just find some other obscure law or Convention to prevent deportations.

    That’s why I have argued that all legislation on immigration and deportation should begin with a strong ‘notwithstanding’ clause that reads: “Notwithstanding any and all laws, rules, regulations, Treaties, Agreements and Conventions, both domestic and international, Parliament has decided that:” and end with a clause that prevents the Courts from intervening in how the law is applied, with the statement: “This legislation and its application is excluded from any oversight or determination by any Court or Tribunal of any kind. Any and every decision of the secretary of state in the pursuance and application of this legislation shall be absolute and unchallengeable in any way by any person.”

    That should do it! Of course the Lords will not agree to this, which is why, once again, a visit to my Substack will show that I have been saying from the beggining that the government needs to appoint 100-150 new Lords who will push through this legislation. Until the left-wing traitors in the Lords are crushed nothing can be done.

  43. glen cullen
    November 16, 2023

    Sunak said yesterday that he’d do anything to stop the boats; ANYTHING ….anything apart from
    Leaving the ECHRs
    Leaving the UN refugee convention
    Disband the Supreme Court
    Stopping the boats mid-channel
    Returning same day any illegal that lands
    Instructing the border force & RNLI to stop picking up illegal’s
    Instructing the civil service to comply
    Using current immigration legislation to reject any illegal
    Immediately categorise every illegal from a safe country as ‘illegal’
    Place any landed illegal in central military tented camp
    Stop giving any pocket money to any landed illegal
    Fly any landed illegal to Rwanda within six months
    Sanction the French if they refuse to accept a return
    But apart from that he’ll do ANYTHING to stop the illegal boat immigration

  44. formula57
    November 16, 2023

    Mrs. Braverman looks ot be on very thin ice indeed. If “She resigned because these promises were not kept” what made her put forward legislative proposals inconsistent with her understanding of those promises? (Her letter says “Our deal expressly reference ‘notwithstanding clauses’ to that effect” – i.e. to block off the ECHR, the HRA and any other obligations which inhibit our ability… . She then says “Your rejection of this path was not merely a betrayal of our agreement….” – yet she went along with that in her Bill?)

    She also charges that against the now crystallized prospect of defeat in Court “…you have failed to prepare any sort of credible ‘Plan B'” yet within hours of the Court decision Mr. Sunak put his Plan B that prima facie seems to be credible. Collapse of stout party?

    I agree with Michael Howard, Mrs. Braverman will soon be forgotten. A thoroughly bad Minister who has wasted her times (two) as Home Secretary and let us all down.

    1. Lynn Atkinson
      November 16, 2023

      Michael who?

  45. Rhoddas
    November 16, 2023

    Let’s be frank Sir J, it’s all p155 and wind, no measureable reductions, just hundreds of thousands of legal and illegal migrants swamping our services, infrastructure and causing real demand pressures, especially in housing, the NHS, A&E and dentistry. But no concrete action, just rearranging the deckchairs, trying to look like summats happening, but it’s just smoke and mirrors.

    The silent majority are thoroughly fed up to their back teeth on this as with many things… you’re on the last year of Government, backs against the wall… either sort it or get totalled in the general elections. Doesn’t the leadership recognise all these people will vote lolabour alongside the fed up / disenfranchised and get even more of the same, sadly….

  46. Geoffrey Berg
    November 16, 2023

    The judges of the Supreme Court were elected by nobody and are accountable to nobody. It is not merely undemocratic but anti-democratic to allow them to determine public policy on any issue. The Act that needs to be brought in to safeguard democracy is to make matters of public policy non-justiciable by the Supreme Court or any other Court, foreign or domestic. Parliament directly elected by the people or Referendums directly voted on by the people should determine public policy and must not be overridden by any Court.

    1. glen cullen
      November 16, 2023

      So neither the people nor the house of commons are supreme

    2. Lynn Atkinson
      November 16, 2023

      Who knows enough to ‘elect a Judge’? Unless you think an overtly politicized Judiciary is an improvement on an independent one?
      Parliament need to legislate in such a way that Judges can enact British Law! That’s our greatest problem

      1. Geoffrey Berg
        November 16, 2023

        Americans are presumed to know enough to elect Judges because generally Judges are elected there. Anyway on that argument M.P.s wouldn’t be elected because you can ask who knows enough to run and legislate for a big country? Yes their judiciary is politicised (when I was at the Republican election office in 2016 in Las Vegas they had a list of candidate Judges up for election locally endorsed by the Republican Party) but so is ours prejudiced and politicised (overwhelmingly left wing) but at least the prejudices of American judges are publicly known.
        In any case what I am saying is that in a democracy unelected judges have no right to overturn public policy decisions of the elected Parliament and shouldn’t be intervening at all – doubtful matters should be referred back to Parliament for a decision and I think significant controversial matters should be determined by referendum.

        1. Lynn Atkinson
          November 16, 2023

          The Judges did NOT overturn the Will of Parliament. You understand the Government proposes but Parliament decides. So the issue is that the Will of Parliament is not what the People want, the `people must therefore tell the party machines functionaries that they are, to take a leap, and SELECT freely those people we want in Parliament. If that is Lawrence Fox so be it.

      2. XY
        November 16, 2023

        Spot on.

  47. glen cullen
    November 16, 2023

    Just had a follow up email from the ‘smart-meter’ text I received yesterday from my energy supplier
    ‘’ We’re obligated by the Government to install smart meters in our customers’ homes’’
    No they’re not, they’re obliged to ‘’offer’’ not to ‘install’
    When did we did a communist government, spending billions to social engineer our behaviour and controlling our freedoms

  48. Keith from Leeds
    November 16, 2023

    I am sorry, Sir John, but I think the PM is pathetic. He has had 12 months to sort this & yet again, we get lots of talk and no action. Sunak, Hunt and Cameron are the worst top team we have ever had and will sink the Conservative Party at the next GE. In my opinion, Conservative MPs have one chance to remove him now.
    You have lost several seats with 20,000-plus majorities; the opinion polls have not moved from being 20 points behind Labour; what more do you need to tell you Sunak is a total failure?
    We need a proper Conservative PM urgently. You should both send in your letter and stand for leader of the party!

  49. hefner
    November 16, 2023

    And how does the WHO ‘thingy’ differs from the UK’s Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, the act that was used in 2020-2021 to justify the lockdowns (see ‘Covid-19 and the use and scrutiny of emergency powers’, 10/06/2021, HL Paper 15, committees.parliament.uk, House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution).

    1. Lynn Atkinson
      November 16, 2023

      We can’t sack them! We can sack the people who enact laws up with which we will not put.

  50. Peter Gardner
    November 16, 2023

    My understanding is that Suella Braverman did not resign but was sacked. I realise that sometimes the distinction is academic but it is significant in this case because the vitriolic quality of her letter
    And where is the document of her agreement with Rishi Sunak? Did he sign it?
    It is obvious to the man on the Clapham Omnibus that the Remainer coup in the Tory Party and Government has claimed another scalp and, in Lord Cameron, another recruit. Tucked away from serious scrutiny in the Lords, already a Remainer hot bed, his mission seems to be to use the Windsor Framework, Sunak’s personal betrayal, to sneak the UK back into the EU, deal by deal without the public noticing in all but name. He can leverage immigration, defence, trade and energy for starters.
    As for the boats, I really do not believe Rishi Sunak is serious. Even if he succeeds in negotiating a revised treaty and passing legislation that satisfies the Supreme Court – there’s a delay in itself which of course will suit Rishi Sunak – he will still face legal battles with the ECHR. These legal games serve to kick the can down the road and avoid the necessary action in the Channel to turn the boats back in UK’s Contiguous Zone beyond the territorial limit. The UK has all the legal cover it needs to turn the boats back but lcks the political will. The legal problems start when the asylum seekers step on UK soil. Avoid these by turning the boats back in The Channel.

  51. Denis Cooper
    November 16, 2023

    The formula “ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament” was used to protect freedom of speech in Parliament by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, and a similar formula could be used in an Act to ensure that the express will of Parliament could not be defied by judges in the UK or elsewhere.

    1. Lynn Atkinson
      November 16, 2023

      Parliament is suborned to other bodies by choice, therefore it is the latest Will of Parliament that Judges take the ‘rules’ made elsewhere as superior to what Parliament last itself proposed and enacted before suborning itself, and us!

      1. Denis Cooper
        November 17, 2023

        Sometimes it becomes necessary for Parliament to clearly and unequivocally express its settled will or judges may make their own preferred, and differing, interpretation of the law, including constitutional law.

        1. Lynn Atkinson
          November 17, 2023

          He’s now thinking of we have a Constitutiomal Monarch to defend the Constitution from both the political class and politicised judiciary who are forced to implement foreign law and thus corrupt our Constitution – because that is the last Will of Parliament.

          Seem the Constitutional Monarchs of this country don’t know their job.

  52. hefner
    November 16, 2023

    Given that Mr Raab’s Human Rights Reform Bill (introduced in December 2021) was scrapped in June 2023, I am afraid the text actually in force is the Human Rights Act 1998, so the 15/11/2023 Supreme Court decision was compliant with the latter.
    Whether the Government is successful in introducing a formula a la Denis Cooper is to be seen, but anybody with a bit of sense would also see that such a formula could also be the first step towards an autocratic government. For years the UK has been functioning assuming that ‘the good guys’ would always be in charge of the Government. Given the rather disturbing figures presently in and around the UK Parliament and media (even without looking at other countries) one can wonder whether this will be the case ‘in saecula saeculorum’.

    1. Denis Cooper
      November 17, 2023

      “such a formula could also be the first step towards an autocratic government”

      So if public policy is decided by Parliament that smacks of autocracy, instead it should be decided by judges.

      What a weird anti-democratic attitude. But don’t worry because you’re not alone thinking that, in fact it has been clear for many years now that most parliamentarians do not actually believe in the sovereignty of Parliament.

      1. hefner
        November 17, 2023

        Where did I propose that ‘it should be decided by judges’?

        1. Denis Cooper
          November 18, 2023

          Then who else would decide it?

  53. a-tracy
    November 16, 2023

    There is a refugee xxxx in the paper today, won refugee status after claiming he was gay. We fathered three children here, different mothers. He involved himself in businesses and scams defrauding 272 known people out of at least £220k. Surely a candidate to have his refugee status removed and his final wife can go back to Nigeria with him. His brother (how did he get here the papers don’t say) ran an electronics firm where he sold the stolen goods, did that firm ever get an HMRC review

    What other benefits was this man claiming, plus all these partners, are his nine partners in crime accepting deliveries for him all being charged and given proper proportionate sentences or just the usual 50-100 community punishment that don’t seem to get worked? This Country is just becoming a joke.

    1. Berkshire Alan
      November 17, 2023

      a-tracy
      Not a surprise !
      They used to say crime does not pay, but from what is going on now, and for a few years with only one in twenty crimes ending in convictions, it would seem that the tables have turned big time.
      Legalised robbery with taxes so high, honest hard work and endeavour certainly no longer seems to pay.
      Illegals paying off the gang masters using crime or working the alternative economy is rife, as is modern slavery.
      What a depressing Country we now live in.

      1. a-tracy
        November 17, 2023

        Alan, I don’t think this government realise how much anger there is, I don’t know about depression, I’m hearing real anger about these things, we feel out of control. Our taxes in the middle are punishing families who have to pay for childcare with Osbornes awful withdrawal of child benefit. The more you do the less you get, and the harder and longer you work to get the social mobility that drives your enterprise (that the parliamentarians kid us they like) the more you are to be punished.

        Wales wants to introduce more council tax bands to hit higher value homes up to £1000 more per home E and over (as an experiment no doubt for English Labour) Currently there are nine council tax bands in Wales A-I, that’s one more than England and Scotland who both only have eight. Local councils currently have the power to set Band D. This would only affect the people who own the most expensive homes in Wales- around 30% of households in Wales, or 450,000 homes. Because that’s ‘fairer’.

        I wonder where Wales is going with this, will people just rent out these big homes to multiple occupancy as many of the big houses in our big cities did? This is at the same time newspapers are doing puff pieces about how over 65s should downsize and free up their family homes to be ‘fairer’. The message is loud and clear with Labour, if you do well, you’re going pay.

  54. mancunius
    November 16, 2023

    ‘Simply embedding a new Rwanda Treaty in law leaves the government policy subject to further legal upsets based on international treaties, the ECHR and principles.’
    But of course – that is its very purpose. Your leader needs to curry favour with the globalists who will be his next employers.

  55. ferdi
    November 16, 2023

    As in most arguments follow the money. Gangsters are making a lot of money from people who are willing to pay large sums for a risky crossing. So to stop it we need to increase the risk and /or the costs for the immigrants. There are two obvious options and and probably some not so obvious. Firstly only pick up the immigrants one mile fro the UK shore. They then have to assess the risk of a much longer journey. Secondly take all the immigrants back to France and force them off the boat. They cannot afford to do that trip many times.

    1. Denis Cooper
      November 17, 2023

      The risk of crossing the Channel in a small boat is being greatly exaggerated by politicians and the media.

      People voluntarily undergo surgical operations with far higher death rates – 3% for open heart surgery:

      https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/312888#

      If the crossings had the same mortality rate there would have been 0.03 x 46,000 = 1380 deaths in 2022.

      That’s about two orders of magnitude higher than the small numbers reported here:

      https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/14/a-timeline-of-migrant-channel-crossing-deaths-since-2019

  56. Derek
    November 16, 2023

    The Government has failed. Again. Worse, they have failed us, the British citizens who have been dominated by an elitist class of unelected persons (Including Judges and Police Commissioners) affecting our very lives each day. And we’re led to believe we live in a democracy?
    Our Democracy? Merely because we can read a fairy tale manifesto drawn up by politico fiction writers to convince us how great they are going to improve our lives once in five years and be conned into believing every policy and action they propose to then vote them to form our new Government.
    Well, the 2019 Tory manifesto proved to be such a mirage as if its content had been immediately swallowed by the Government as soon as they gained their increased power.
    Sorry SJ but your Party is no longer your party because they have moved left and left and now resemble the disfunctional wishy washy LibDems and I fear there is also an acute shortage of real Conservatives left in the HoC which does not bode well for any change until past 2024.
    It’s clear from the polls that it will be a sad case of jumping out of the frying pan into the blazing fire when the socialists are back in Downing Street. Consequently, I look to our future with much dark foreboding.

  57. Wokinghamite
    November 16, 2023

    We are thinking of rejecting the ECHR. Presumably, the EU wouldn’t want us to do that. Instead, could we negotiate with the EU so that the human rights legislation is relaxed in such a way that it no longer prevents our Rwanda scheme? There would be a benefit to both sides.

    1. glen cullen
      November 16, 2023

      The European Convention on Human Rights is actually under the control of the European Council …however it is a condition of EU membership that you’re a signatory to the ECHRs
      In theory its got nothing to do with the European Union, however in practise they control everything – including the council

      1. hefner
        November 25, 2023

        Be a bit precise, glen, you must be referring to the Council of Europe. This one has 46 members and the other one (EU Council) only 27.

Comments are closed.