Friday, January 12, 2024
Jets vs the Sharks in prime time Commons vote
To be fair, the way that the Mirror describes the forthcoming vote on the government's Rwanda bill, it really does sound like West Side Story.
The paper's headline says that the Tories are at war, as rival rebel gangs demand Rishi Sunak's Rwanda plan is shredded to pieces. The upshot is that the Prime Minister's Rwanda crisis has deepened after a group of his own MPs demanded key parts of the plan are ripped out, setting up a brutal showdown next week:
Moderates within the Conservative Party have told the Prime Minister his bid to weaken human rights laws has "gone too far". But hardliners - including Suella Braverman, Liz Truss, Sir Iain Duncan Smith and Robert Jenrick - instead want the controversial Safety of Rwanda Bill to go even further in denying legal rights to asylum seekers.
It means Mr Sunak is caught in a bruising battle between his warring MPs - who will refuse to back each other's demands. It will take just 28 Tories voting against his Bill, or 55 to abstain, to inflict a humiliating defeat on the PM.
In the latest set of amendments, former Justice Secretary Sir Robert Buckland called for a clause denying Human Rights Act protection to asylum seekers to be ditched. He also said the UK must not be allowed to ignore rulings by international courts, as proposed by Mr Sunak.
But this puts him at loggerheads with the right-wing "five families" groups, who want the Bill beefed up. Mr Jenrick, who quit as Immigration Minister in protest over the PM's plans, has tabled 15 amendments, backed by around 40 MPs. These are aimed at making it harder for asylum seekers to appeal, and blocking injunctions from European judges.
Sir Robert, a member of the centrist One Nation group of Tories, told GB News that no members of his faction - which has around 100 members - will back Mr Jenrick's changes. He said: "They are not acceptable. In fact they go way too far. They show no respect for the rule of law and are fundamentally unconservative.
"They will not be supported. And I can't think of many One Nation colleagues who would. The bill itself has gone too far anyway and it needs to be trimmed."
The legislation - designed to get around a Supreme Court ruling that Rwanda isn't a safe place to send asylum seekers to - will be put before the Commons on Tuesday and Wednesday. Right wingers warn that it won't achieve its aims without the changes they propose.
Mr Jenrick - who refused to say if he will vote for the Bill if it isn't amended, said it "simply doesn't work" as it stands. And former frontbencher Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg - who also supports the right-wing amendments - pointed out that two previous Tory attempts to stop the boats had failed.
He said: “Passing an ineffective bill would make the government look hopeless. In many ways it would be better to do nothing than to fail again because this is actually the third go at trying to get people deported to Rwanda.”
The bill is widely predicted to stumble in the House of Lords, many of whose members understand and support humnan rights law. They are not going to be fooled by the PM trying to "fundamentally change reality" by pushing the "fiction" that Rwanda is safe for refugees.
However, at this rate, the chances of the bill ever reaching the Lords is diminishing daily.
The paper's headline says that the Tories are at war, as rival rebel gangs demand Rishi Sunak's Rwanda plan is shredded to pieces. The upshot is that the Prime Minister's Rwanda crisis has deepened after a group of his own MPs demanded key parts of the plan are ripped out, setting up a brutal showdown next week:
Moderates within the Conservative Party have told the Prime Minister his bid to weaken human rights laws has "gone too far". But hardliners - including Suella Braverman, Liz Truss, Sir Iain Duncan Smith and Robert Jenrick - instead want the controversial Safety of Rwanda Bill to go even further in denying legal rights to asylum seekers.
It means Mr Sunak is caught in a bruising battle between his warring MPs - who will refuse to back each other's demands. It will take just 28 Tories voting against his Bill, or 55 to abstain, to inflict a humiliating defeat on the PM.
In the latest set of amendments, former Justice Secretary Sir Robert Buckland called for a clause denying Human Rights Act protection to asylum seekers to be ditched. He also said the UK must not be allowed to ignore rulings by international courts, as proposed by Mr Sunak.
But this puts him at loggerheads with the right-wing "five families" groups, who want the Bill beefed up. Mr Jenrick, who quit as Immigration Minister in protest over the PM's plans, has tabled 15 amendments, backed by around 40 MPs. These are aimed at making it harder for asylum seekers to appeal, and blocking injunctions from European judges.
Sir Robert, a member of the centrist One Nation group of Tories, told GB News that no members of his faction - which has around 100 members - will back Mr Jenrick's changes. He said: "They are not acceptable. In fact they go way too far. They show no respect for the rule of law and are fundamentally unconservative.
"They will not be supported. And I can't think of many One Nation colleagues who would. The bill itself has gone too far anyway and it needs to be trimmed."
The legislation - designed to get around a Supreme Court ruling that Rwanda isn't a safe place to send asylum seekers to - will be put before the Commons on Tuesday and Wednesday. Right wingers warn that it won't achieve its aims without the changes they propose.
Mr Jenrick - who refused to say if he will vote for the Bill if it isn't amended, said it "simply doesn't work" as it stands. And former frontbencher Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg - who also supports the right-wing amendments - pointed out that two previous Tory attempts to stop the boats had failed.
He said: “Passing an ineffective bill would make the government look hopeless. In many ways it would be better to do nothing than to fail again because this is actually the third go at trying to get people deported to Rwanda.”
The bill is widely predicted to stumble in the House of Lords, many of whose members understand and support humnan rights law. They are not going to be fooled by the PM trying to "fundamentally change reality" by pushing the "fiction" that Rwanda is safe for refugees.
However, at this rate, the chances of the bill ever reaching the Lords is diminishing daily.
