site banner
Soriek  11mo ago (text post)   1038 thread views

Transnational Thursdays 29

This is a weekly thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or IR history. I usually start off with coverage of some current events from a mix of countries I follow personally and countries I think the forum lives in or might be interested in. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The United Kingdom

More updates on ex-Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s plan to deport migrants to Rwanda, temporarily frozen by Britain’s Supreme Court (is it weird that the court was founded in 2009 and can overturn major legislative decisions? It seems weird from the outside, even though that’s what a Supreme Court is supposed to do after all). The deal is apparently back on because Britain and Rwanda have now signed a formal agreement (which apparently overrules court decisions). The deal was overseen by James Cleverly, Suella Braverman’s replacement as Home Secretary:

Under the new treaty, signed by British Home Secretary (interior minister) James Cleverly and which replaces a non-binding memorandum of understanding, Britain said Rwanda would not expel asylum seekers to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened - one of the court's major concerns.

There will also be a monitoring committee to enable individuals to lodge confidential complaints directly to them, and a new appeal body made up of judges from around the world.

Cleverly said he expected migrants to be heading to Rwanda in the coming months because the treaty addressed all the issues raised by the Supreme Court..

However, many lawyers and charities said it was unlikely that deportation flights could start before an election expected next year. The opposition Labour Party, which has a double-digit lead in the polls, plans to ditch the Rwanda policy if it wins.

Under the plan agreed last year, Britain intends to send thousands of asylum seekers who arrived on its shores without permission to Rwanda to deter migrants making the dangerous journey across the Channel from Europe in small boats.

In return, Rwanda has received an initial payment of 140 million pounds ($180 million) with the promise of more money to fund the accommodation and care of any deported individuals.

The British parliament has now attempted to rush through a bill saying this is all well and good under the European Court of Human Rights. However, Robert Jenrick, the Immigration Minister, has actually suddenly resigned, apparently because he feels the legislation doesn't go far enough.

The legislation unveiled by the government on Wednesday did not take the UK out of the treaty, but did have a vital caveat attached to it. On the first page of the bill, UK Home Secretary James Cleverley said he could not guarantee that the legislation was “compatible with the Convention rights.”

The bill also disapplies certain sections of the UK Human Rights Act, a staple piece of legislation which incorporated the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic UK law. Another clause stipulates that the bill is sovereign and its validity is unaffected by key international law instruments including the ECHR and the Refugee Convention.

The Supreme Court was created by Tony Blair to take over from the original last court of appeal, which was essentially parliament itself. Specifically, the court was staffed by the Law Lords, who were part of the House of Lords and therefore associated with legislation). Ostensibly because it was inappropriate to have the highest court of appeal be part of the government.

To let my prejudices take over, it was a classic piece of Blairism in that it was constitutional change for the sake of change. He had an obsession with being 'modern', so he made hamfisted changes to the country in ways that now can't be stopped - making the Bank of England independent, devolving government in Scotland, Wales and NI, the creation of hate crimes and 'protected characteristics', mass immigration, and trying to splice Napoleonic European rights law into British Common Law. The last of those is responsible for the majority of problems, as it destroys the load-bearing principle that Parliament is sovereign and pretty much all of our constitution with it. This is creating all the problems re: immigration.

"Giving a title to a court that includes the adjective ‘supreme’ – and putting no higher domestic judicatory above it – might be thought to be, at the very least, a temptation to judicial overreach."

https://policyexchange.org.uk/blogs/the-difference-leaving-the-house-of-lords-has-made/

The British parliament has now attempted to rush through a bill saying this is all well and good under the European Court of Human Rights. However, Robert Jenrick, the Immigration Minister, has actually suddenly resigned, apparently because he feels the legislation doesn't go far enough.

There is an increasingly strong suspicion that Rishi Sunak is pro-immigration but has to be publicly against it, so he's pushing 'solutions' that he knows will get tied up in legal appeal until after the election. Certainly, he's dead-set against actually reducing our commitments to international human rights law, which is what Jenrick is advocating, and it's not realistically possible to do anything about immigration without doing so.

“The stakes for the country are too high for us not to pursue the stronger protections required to end the merry-go-round of legal challenges which risk paralysing the scheme and negating its intended deterrent,” Jenrick said in his resignation letter.

is it weird that the court was founded in 2009 and can overturn major legislative decisions? It seems weird from the outside, even though that’s what a Supreme Court is supposed to do after all

Well, if you have new institutions then they will tend to do what they were designed to do. Maybe it is surprising for you that they managed to actually create new major institution rather than having forever gridlock (not saying that this court was a good idea, I am not fan of alternative judiciary parliament but have no great alternative ideas either)?

The Supreme Court contributes to gridlock - it exists to frustrate legislation, not make it.

In theory. In practice supreme courts/constitutional courts often engage in de facto legislation by creative interpretation.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats