Road rules1 min ago
Civil Servants “May” Strike Over Rwanda Plan
Are they right to do this ?
Or is the CS now full of left wingers who are hell bent on bringing the Government down ?
https:/
Or is the CS now full of left wingers who are hell bent on bringing the Government down ?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Bobbisox1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'm not so sure they are left wingers, more Metropolitan Liberal Elites.
No, they should not be allowed to do this they are civil servants. If they wish to influence the way the country is run then they should get themselves elected to Parliament.
Anyone refusing should be sacked.
And and lefties on here who think this this is funny just wait until a labour government gets in at some point. This lot are not labour voters they will do exactly the same to any labour policies they dont like.
No, they should not be allowed to do this they are civil servants. If they wish to influence the way the country is run then they should get themselves elected to Parliament.
Anyone refusing should be sacked.
And and lefties on here who think this this is funny just wait until a labour government gets in at some point. This lot are not labour voters they will do exactly the same to any labour policies they dont like.
I agree that Civil Servants absolutely shouldn't strike in order to change policy or Governments. But it isn't clear that this is what's happening here. Note that the headline specifically says that Civil Servants "fear being forced to break the law", which is in breach of the Civil Service Code and explicitly overrides the duty to serve the elected Government.
Now, whether or not it's actually true that Civil Servants would be "forced to break the law", I don't know in this case. I was under the impression that the Rwanda Policy in general (albeit not in any specific case) had been ruled lawful in Courts, and the article isn't at all helpful in clarifying what the PCSU's spokesperson means. The Independent article linked below seems to expand on this, but the references to International Law don't seem to me to be any more persuasive as grounds to strike -- since, again, it ought to be for the Courts to determine the lawfulness of the policy, and they will surely have considered the position under International Law also.
The Telegraph article below says that Rwanda policy will come under review at the Court of Appeal shortly, so perhaps all this will change. Still, to the extent that Civil Servants should absolutely not be striking over *policy* matters, I wholeheartedly agree. But not every dispute is solely a matter of policy, and it's disheartening when they are characterised this way in order to disparage the Civil Service as a whole.
https:/
https:/
Now, whether or not it's actually true that Civil Servants would be "forced to break the law", I don't know in this case. I was under the impression that the Rwanda Policy in general (albeit not in any specific case) had been ruled lawful in Courts, and the article isn't at all helpful in clarifying what the PCSU's spokesperson means. The Independent article linked below seems to expand on this, but the references to International Law don't seem to me to be any more persuasive as grounds to strike -- since, again, it ought to be for the Courts to determine the lawfulness of the policy, and they will surely have considered the position under International Law also.
The Telegraph article below says that Rwanda policy will come under review at the Court of Appeal shortly, so perhaps all this will change. Still, to the extent that Civil Servants should absolutely not be striking over *policy* matters, I wholeheartedly agree. But not every dispute is solely a matter of policy, and it's disheartening when they are characterised this way in order to disparage the Civil Service as a whole.
https:/
https:/
The specific High Court decision (as described above, subject to review by the Court of Appeal) was that the Rwanda policy itself was not unlawful, but that all the individual decisions to deport people under that policy were flawed. See https:/
"The court has concluded that it is lawful for the government to make arrangements for relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the United Kingdom... However, the Home Secretary must consider properly the circumstances of each individual claimant. ... [and] has not properly considered the circumstances of the eight individual claimants whose cases we have considered. For that reason, the decisions in those cases will be set aside and their cases will be referred back to the Home Secretary for her to consider afresh."
I'm not sure what the Appeal Court will say or what it's specifically going to look at, but on the face of it ( https:/
"The court has concluded that it is lawful for the government to make arrangements for relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda and for their asylum claims to be determined in Rwanda rather than in the United Kingdom... However, the Home Secretary must consider properly the circumstances of each individual claimant. ... [and] has not properly considered the circumstances of the eight individual claimants whose cases we have considered. For that reason, the decisions in those cases will be set aside and their cases will be referred back to the Home Secretary for her to consider afresh."
I'm not sure what the Appeal Court will say or what it's specifically going to look at, but on the face of it ( https:/
Latest Posts
Crosswords18 mins ago
Film, Media & TV18 mins ago
Crosswords21 mins ago
News22 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.