Business & Finance2 mins ago
Suella's Letter To Sunak
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. 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.
"He was elected party leader by his MPs"
as i recall all of his competitors withdrew in order to avoid the embarassment of another leadership contest... it was expected at the time that sunak would actually have lost a vote among MPs (seeing as he did a few weeks earlier) and definitely would have lost one among the party members
i agree our system does allow for parties to change leaders midterm but braverman is right that he doesn't have a mandate
TTT, I disagree. Strength is everything. Leaders have to be resilient enough to withstand the flak resulting from unpopular decisions. All chiefs and no indians can never work and neither can floating around on middle ground trying to please all of the people all of the time If we want to resolve the boats issue leaving the ECHR is imperative but that's something he seems to be avoiding at all costs - I suspect because howls from the hand-wringers would be deafening. Promoted as a last resort, he is I believe a hopelessly gutless wonder - and gutless wonders do not make successful leaders.
Naomi: "TTT, you said //Strength is irrelevant// Did I misunderstand that?" - Yes but my fault, I meant it doesn't matter how strong you are, you cannot get past the legal challenges etc that always stimie these things. Similarly we have the "strength" to repell the invaders and stop them getting here but we are prevented by our own legislation.
//i suspect sunak is looking forward to getting his green card back and swanning off to his mansion in california. maybe even a few lucrative speaking engagements to think-tanks gushing with oil money when he wants to splurge. he's set for life.//
Heavens to Betsy! I finally agree with something Untitled has said.
I meant it doesn't matter how strong you are, you cannot get past the legal challenges etc that always stimie these things.
I hate to say "I told you so", Tora, but I did. I said when the Rwanda scheme was first announced (which seems like a hundred years ago) that it would never bear fruit. I said that quite categorically and I still stand by it.
Mr Sunak announced today that they would enact emergency legislation that would ensure that the removals are deemed legal. I've news for him (which his advisors should have portrayed to him): it doesn't matter what legislation he enacts. So long as the UK is a signatory to the ECHR (which we will not withdraw if for no other reason that the Good Friday Agreement depends on it and our own Parliament will never sanction it anyway) and so long as we have our own Human Rights Act (which we will not repeal) every attempt to transfer people to Rwanda will fail.
Those two pieces of legislation, along with the UN Convention on the treatment of refugees are together being used to provide legal protection to people who simply don't like it where they are and want "a new life". As well as causing enormous problems for this country, they are encouraging the wholesale departure of predominantly young male people from their countries of origin - the very people who should remain there to fund and provide care for their elderly and vulnerable. Each of those pieces of legislation is contributing to those two problems and they need radical reform or dirching - neither of which is remotely likely.
The only way to deal with this problemis to physically [revent these people from arriving. Instead of that we are actively facilitating it, picking up the migrants when they have reached mid point in The Channel (ably assisted in the first half of their journey by the French, to whom we are paying squillions of quids to prevent their departure).
You really couldn't make it up. Yet we have a man who looks like a carpet salesman, in an ill fitting shiny suit, standing behind a lectern with "Stop The Boats" plastered on the front. That'll teach 'em!
N.J.
Please tell me what is wrong with the Iceland MPs 'solution; "Take them off the dinghys, give them a bottle of water, put them on another boat, & take them back to France".
The ECHR would have nothing whatsoever to do with that, it would be a fait accompli by the time they stir themselves from their splendid restaurant within the Council of Europe headquarters (which I happen to know quite well !).
Please tell me what is wrong with the Iceland MPs 'solution; "Take them off the dinghys, give them a bottle of water, put them on another boat, & take them back to France".
It might happen once. Provided the plan was not "leaked" in advance. After that the matter would be put before the courts and ruled unlawful. Under the current interpretation of the UN Convention, those claiming asylum must not be deported until their cases have been heard and their claim denied.
Essentially, once on UK soil, all bets are off. And that won't change by Mr Sunak drawing up legislation that declares "Rwanda is safe" (assuming it gets through Parliament, that is).
Just to highlight a bit of reaction to yesterday's announcement by the government (that new legislation would make the Rwanda flights possible):
https:/
Lord Sumption, (a lifetime in law and a former Supreme Court judge) had this to say:
"It sounds a profoundly discreditable plan to use a law to declare Rwanda as safe was "constitutionally really quite extraordinary".
He argued it would "effectively overrule a decision on the facts, on the evidence, by the highest court in the land".
"I've never heard of a situation in which parliament intervenes to declare the facts - the safety or unsafety of Rwanda - to change the facts from those that have been declared by the courts to be correct," he said.
James Cleverly (career to date: an Army reservist, five years as a sales manager in publishing, eight years serving on the London Assembly rising to be chairman of the London Waste & Recycling Board, eight years as an MP, five days as the Home Secretary) disagreed, saying "MPs could vote to approve the treaty once it was agreed and pass new laws within days."
I wonder who will be proved correct?
Latest Posts
Body & Soul4 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Highway To The Danger Zone.....
Film, Media & TV19 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.