Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Draft Bill

[motorbiking]

Irrelevant waffle.

This snippet though, isn't irrelevant

Only because you don't understand constitutional law/convention. They can fast track legislation though, but then it goes up to the lords. If it's a manifesto pledge the Lords cannot hold it up. If it isn't they can. It's called the Salisbury-Addison Doctrine. google it.

So the reason the Bill will get stuck, is because its not a manifesto pledge - clear?

 

[Brigadier]

I heard a quote from someone who was quite close to him - professionally, for some years - his biographer, ghost writer, something like that.
About Bozza's opportunistic mentality:

"Boris would see a crowd running. So he'd jump in front and shout" Follow me! "'

A succinct appraisal of the man

What could possibly go wrong with Boris at the helm....

Shmucks.

 

[noseall]

Only because you don't understand constitutional law/convention. They can fast track legislation though, but then it goes up to the lords. If it's a manifesto pledge the Lords cannot hold it up. If it isn't they can. It's called the Salisbury-Addison Doctrine. google it.

So the reason the Bill will get stuck, is because its not a manifesto pledge - clear?

More irrelevant waffle.

It's not going to pass because his Rwanda bill is shít and his colleagues know it and are not going to support it.

Manifesto my arse.

 

[motorbiking]

That may also be true, but even if they do, it will get stuck in the Lords. I suspect he may have the numbers. Unless this is civil war No,3 and they want a new leader.

 

[Notch7]

“I can see past the pretty face and Lawyer like suit - to see a useful idiot, who is currently unemployed and doesn't appear to have a grasp of facts.”

She does have a grasp of the facts

You just don’t like it because it rips apart the guff you read in the Telegraph, which is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the govt

 

[Roy Bloom]

Only because you don't understand constitutional law/convention. They can fast track legislation though, but then it goes up to the lords. If it's a manifesto pledge the Lords cannot hold it up. If it isn't they can. It's called the Salisbury-Addison Doctrine. google it.

So the reason the Bill will get stuck, is because its not a manifesto pledge - clear?

It's not obligatory for parties to be bound by that Convention.
In addition there could be lots of silly claims, about amendements made in the Lords, which are not accurate.

 

[noseall]

Unless this is civil war No,3 and they want a new leader.

Now you're talking sense.

 

[motorbiking]

which is why it

It's not obligatory for parties to be bound by that Convention.

Do you mean the Lords?

 

[Roy Bloom]

which is why it
Do you mean the Lords?

I mean Parties can refuse to be bound by that Convention for various reasons: Hung Parliaments being just one reason, which I accept is not relevant for this session.
It also does not prevent adjustment or amendments to the bill by the Lords.

 

[Notch7]

They were delivered a landslide. All they had to do is quietly get on with the job

the Conservatives were delivered a landslide by Johnson selling Brexit lies

So “quietly getting on with the job”:has an impossible task….you can’t deliver lies, so we’ve had 4+ years of Tory games continuing the lies. The Rwanda policy is just another lie, its purpose was a deflection not a policy to actually work.

Heres how the scam worked:

1) let’s come up with a great policy that we can claim will work
2) it will get thrown by the courts because it’s not legal
3) we can claim we had a working solution but were thwarted by “leftie lawyers”

The problem is the public are pizzed off the Tories have thrown away a fortune on a scheme that was used just for Daily Nail headlines

 

[motorbiking]

@Roy Bloom I think your googling took you in the wrong direction. This explains it https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldconst/28/2804.htm

Government can fast track a bill.
Parliament votes, amendments added etc.
It goes up to the Lords
Lords can sit on it, passing it back and forth. But not if it's a manifesto pledge.

This is why the comment on it not being a manifesto pledge is key.

 

[motorbiking]

the Conservatives were delivered a landslide by Johnson selling Brexit lies

So “quietly getting on with the job”:has an impossible task….you can’t deliver lies, so we’ve had 4+ years of Tory games continuing the lies. The Rwanda policy is just another lie, its purpose was a deflection not a policy to actually work.

Heres how the scam worked:

1) let’s come up with a great policy that we can claim will work
2) it will get thrown by the courts because it’s not legal
3) we can claim we had a working solution but were thwarted by “leftie lawyers”

The problem is the public are pizzed off the Tories have thrown away a fortune on a scheme that was used just for Daily Nail headlines

As I said in this thread. The right approach would have been to lease some land from Rwanda and strike an agreement that its a British overseas territory and create an off-shore processing centre. The Australian model.

 

[motorbiking]

She does have a grasp of the facts

You just don’t like it because it rips apart the guff you read in the Telegraph, which is nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the govt

Statistics - Asylum Information Database | European Council on Refugees and Exiles

Overview of statistical practice In France, detailed statistics on asylum applications and first instance decisions are published annually by the Office of Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) in its activity reports. The next OFPRA Activity Report will be published in spring...

asylumineurope.org

156,455 applicants for France.

How many people do we grant protection to?

www.gov.uk

97390 applicants to the UK - ignoring the 154,254 who came via legal routes
156,455
What is so hard to understand? 97390 *3 ≠ 156,455

She didn't even need to say it. She could have said France receives more.

 

[Roy Bloom]

@Roy Bloom I think your googling took you in the wrong direction. This explains it https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201719/ldselect/ldconst/28/2804.htm

Government can fast track a bill.
Parliament votes, amendments added etc.
It goes up to the Lords
Lords can sit on it, passing it back and forth. But not if it's a manifesto pledge.

This is why the comment on it not being a manifesto pledge is key.

Irrespective of it being a manifesto policy, the Lords can make amendments. The Convention does not prevent that.
It only prevents 'wrecking' amedments on the second reading. The definition of 'wrecking' amendments is open to interpretation.
In addition, the House of Commons cannot enforce the Convention, it is only for the Lords to respect it, or not as they please.
Also a Party can refuse to respect the Convention for reasons of their own, e.g. unfair composition of the Lords, hung Parliament, Coalition, etc.

 

[Roy Bloom]

As I said in this thread. The right approach would have been to lease some land from Rwanda and strike an agreement that its a British overseas territory and create an off-shore processing centre. The Australian model.

We already have some BOTs. We don't need to create another. And it would oblige Rwanda to cede some territory to UK.