Supreme Court Rules Against Government on Rwanda 

Wow! That's a very fast response from this morning's judgement. Impressive.

UN ~ Utter Nonsense.

Thank you for this intelligent explanation of the ruling. Something I could not find on mainstream media anywhere!

Thank you for this explanation - and so swiftly following the announcement of the judgement. 👍

I wished we had a boarder and immigration like Australia, if you are breaking laws you go back home, if you have criminal records, you can’t come in. If you don’t turn around they sink you. They let in refugees but you need to do it legally.

What a waste of money, any one on the street could have told the Government this was never going to,happen

Oh no, they’ll be piling in now even more!

It's a matter of how you define safe and what rights you give them. For example, lets say they declare themselves as "trans" and a country does not recognise "trans" then would that be unsafe. This is where we leave ourselves vulnerable.The courts can keep on adding to the definition of safe until we no longer have a country. This is tragic, it really is. It's a sign of mass stupidity within our nation.

Thanks for explaining "refoulment" and the SC ruling.

What is often overlooked is that if the UK ships out asylum seekers to Rwanda, article 16 of the agreement states that the UK has agreed to 'resettle' an equal number of 'most vulnerable refugees' from Rwanda. So it's a zero-sum concept to start with.

As the evidence shows there is serious risk of directly or indirectly sending refugees from Rwanda to non-safe countries, this should raise questions about the credibility of the deal as a whole

I think it's worth mentioning BBB that apparently one of the significant factors was evidence from the UNHCR that they did not consider Rwanda a safe place. I expect there is no reference to the ECHR in the judgement. Meaning that even if we withdrew from it the result would be unchanged. I wasn't aware that successful applicants had to stay in Rwanda. I thought we were merely subcontrracting the process.

Can the ministers responsible for this failure be made to pay back the vast amount of tax payers money back

If you listen to our friend here through no fault of his own it all sounds very normal for politics however in reality We are at a crossroads on a huge scale if you know you know if you dont then thats a nice rock you've got there

Even considering for one moment that Rwanda could be regarded as safe when we have given asylum to refugees from that country was an absurd move. This government is sadly beyond parody.

By the same token these people cross half a dozen 'safe' countries to get to the UK

How about a 'lawful' 'policy' to make the UK a safer place?

i think we should send the entire political class to Rwanda indefinitely tbf, the country would suddenly become an innumerable amount better off

I understand that the evidence from the UN was give a lot of weight by the court which given the organisation is neither independent or unbiased is astonishing. I do not buy that the Supreme Court decision had nothing to do with politics.

I know my memory is shot after my recent strokes. But when in the hell, did we get a Supreme Court. I thought that was an American thing!

Strange that Germany and a couple of other EU countries seem to judge Rwanda as a safe country to carry out asylum claims and is not contrary to EU law.

Like you say. Its not right to send anyone to a country they are not safe, i can understand that but when immigration gives them hotels which taxpayers pay for because the immigration service and government are useless. When people born in uk become homeless thru no falt of there own, they don't feel safe in their own country, and find themselves forgotten and in danger What about a hotel room for them? No the government, councils, social services, etc don't care They are too busy looking after people from other countries.

Without going into law or politics... phew and thank goodness; and thank you for getting there so speedily and comprehensively without droning, Daniel. We won't get that anywhere else.

Thank you.

Thanks for this, made it easier to understand

Thank you for your channel. Can I say something different as. A Scottish person when we wanted a vote for independence it went to the court they had said we could not have a vote the prime Minister was very happy with the courts and now when the court don't go hes way now . He is now again the the supreme Court . It not going has way is it

I think every time a Tory MP breaks any law they need shipped off to Rwanda. With that many public educated toffs going to Africa they'd think it was the 19th century again and love it.

As as I can see this would not reduce the total number coming to this country because it was a simple swop, one of ours for one of theirs.

Is there any other area of UK law where the primary legislation is 70 years old and is accepted as perfectly suitable despite the economic, technological and other societal changes that have taken place in the past 70 years?.

Couldn’t have summed that up any better👌🏿

The ruling was not only a legal judgement but also a moral one. The government are proving that they are immoral. Any reduction to human rights could one day also be applied to you and me.

If Rwanda is unsafe, then surely they can be returned to France, from whence most last left before attempting to enter the UK. Return them to France. After several large boat loads of “refugees”, one can be sure that France would actively deal with the problem before these “refugees” can illegally sail to the UK.

Hi, would you consider doing a video on the legality of the government having access to bank accounts of people claiming benefits, that banks are expected to provide information to the DWP. I understand the prevention/detection of crime/fraud but such a sweeping blanket action, is it legal, thinking of GDPR & human rights legislation. Ty

I agree with you bbb but also I think it wrong these people turn up on our island and then expect us take them in we can’t keep taking them in . The Rwanda plan was I’ll thought out and rather stupid but we have got so something we can’t keep taking as many people as we are we don’t have the housing , school , NHS capacity or anything

I short we have had £Millions more of our taxes wasted to be told anyone arriving illegally can stay and we have to pay for them ! The people smugglers will be rubbing their hands !

Part of this plan was the agreement to send some Rwandans to the UK. Hardly discussed.

Would be interesting to hear what possible next steps are for the government.

This all may be true and a correct interpretation of the law, but why does it seem that illegal immigrants have more rights than native citizens? If I as a white Canadian showed up at Dover because I want to escape our useless oppressive government, and I feel my life would be better and safer in England would I be given accommodation and free health care etc.?

He said he shall change the law to comply with the Supreme Court, how is that even possible and sensical

I never understood how they thought it would ever be legal. Thanks for your perspective.

Worked out well for the government this. "We tried but the courts stopped us from carrying out what people want." Lawyer mates and family of the government make some decent bunce. It kicked the immigration can further down the road. No one in government or the opposition has any interest in really tackling this issue with any real sincerity.

Allegedly, Rwanda has it's own people coming to the UK and applying for asylum! What would that say about Rwanda!

Yet these people are happy to live here making it an unsafe country for everyone else.

But you can send them here to cause as much trouble as they want.

From your explanation it is clear that the Supreme Court made the correct decision - we are lucky to have such excellent judges. The media and others with vested interests will no doubt try to put a different spin on this in order to promote their personal agendas. I thought it particularly bad that the deputy leader of the conservative party suggested, allegedly, that the PM should ignore the law!

Turn boats around then

And yet Europe are going to send them to Albania!!

best start learning the 5 pillars

thanks, Daniel. Unrelated, but I've read that you can get into trouble for having offensive weapons in a private place, with even fewer justifications than if they were in public. Am I misreading that or does that seem a bit ... weird?

Parliament will simply create an Emergency Law, ratify and circumnavigate the Supreme Court ruling.

Jonathan Gullis has said to Andrew Marr that the government are going to declare that Rwanda is safe as if he believes that will make deportation to Rwanda ok!!

Thank you for presenting the legal framework of the matter so clearly and concisely. However, enfin the main matter rests on the basis of the probative value of the evidence presented concerning safety of asylum seekers. There is additionally the matter of the definition (evidence based, of course) of an asylum seeker as opposed to an economic migrant. Outwith a clear evidential basis, the so called 'safety' issue and 'asylum' seeker matter appear as no more than convenient fig-leaves designed to cover an inconvenient mundane truth.

Well, that's a shame.

I was suprised that Rwanda was an option to begin with. Not safe at all but I do question the background and the intention of these said "asylum seekers"

Human rights lawyers praising the rule of law being upheld in the UK, while simultaneously supporting people who arrived here ILLEGALLY. Hypocrisy at its finest.

What I dont understand about this judgement - if the people claiming refugee status are found to be false - why on earth cant they be sent back to their country of origin. As a economic migrant, in reality, they do not come under any human right treaty covering refugees. The Supreme Court, imo, just make decisions based on their own political beliefs, not the letter of the law.

If "mere" agreements & undertakings between governments to meet the required standards aren't sufficient, then the treaties involved also need to be thrown out as they too are mere agreements & undertakings between governments. The whole case is a nonsensical farce on that basis.

So will we get the money back from Rwanda that we paid to enter into this agreement? Think it was 14 million or something?

Being poor, is not justification for claiming asylum.

…and what is the criteria that defines whether a country is safe or not, and its thresholds?

Braverman manages to get herself sacked like what 2 days before this? 😂 Her ghoulish dream!

I’m surprised the British government hasn’t tried to lease an island from Cuba.

8:25 Absolutely. Thank you for stating this so clearly.

I appreciate there is a need to do something, but ultimately I wouldn't agree with sending people into a situation that would result in them being fundamentally unsafe.

The Rwanda plan was silly..... we have absolutely thousands upon thousands of uninvited immigrants from Africa in the UK. Unsustainable policy.

In the end of the day, the people coming over on boats across the channel are taking a very high risk and potentially deadly approach to entering the UK, when there is a much less risky and non life-threatening mechanism through proper channels. The only reason someone would take such a move would be that they know that the proper channels would not accept them, bringing in to question what is their history which would reject such an application? Not to mention the fact that the French obviously do not want them and allow them to get away with this, turning a blind eye to it. They might as well see them inflating the boat right there and all clamouring on, tip their hat to them, then walk away while doing a jaunty whistle as if they didn't see a thing. The main one was the Albanian immigrants, as it was pointed out by an MP once before that a plane ticket to the UK was vastly cheaper. They could have come over using their 90 day tourist entitlement and claim asylum that way, and it would have been completely legal. The question is what would have flagged during background cheques of these individuals that would have prevented them from taking this vastly cheaper, safe, And legal approach? So the question becomes why does the government allow so much mass immigration even though the public does not want it, And it would be politically popular to actually do something about it? Pensions my friends. Pensions. The whole pension system was set up as a Ponzi scheme from the start, assuming infinite growth of new people contributing to the system. But like any Ponzi scheme, It will eventually collapse. What we are seeing is the governments desperate attempt to keep pumping money into the national coffers, from people who will then leave and not draw from the system itself... (In theory). But all we're doing is letting the Ponzi Scheme grow bigger, leading to a much harder fall, Rather than being honest with the public and admitting the way things have been set up was a grave mistake and sacrifices must be made to correct the error.

Un f***ing believable.

I've never believed the vital measure of being able to remove people present in the UK without consent would work properly unless we created a 'spare UK' as the destination, with the obvious hazard that UK citizens might quite like to move there and subsequently object to 'irregular migrants' (read that label on a gov chart a moment ago) arriving. It's an interesting problem that we should be pleased we have. 'Nobody wanting to come here' is the solution we shouldn't want.

So please explain to me why the Chinese controlled UN says that Rwanda IS a Safe Country.......Please explain to me why some European Countrys are now " talking" to Rwanda! to except immigrants, they are not having problems with the LAW?

But why the thumbnail of Ricky

I know you mentioned European law not playing a part of this but how hard would it be for the UK Gov to take the country out of the ECHR or Council of Europe? A lot of this feels like false justification to further isolate the country from the rest of the world.

They’ll try Somalia next.

Shame Suella's had it away on her toes then. If the Rwanda idea crashed she had set her heart on North Korea. And failing that maybe Siberia.

Rishi says its not and if they block it when he re applies it he'll just change the law. We need a new PM!

The thing I don't understand is why asylum seekers that have arrived here from France are not immediately returned to France. Surely France is a safe country? After processing those who genuinely need political asylum should be settled, and the UK should take our fair share. Those who are economic migrants should be sent back to their country of origin. The current system seems to be geared up to keep migrants trapped in the system for as long as possible without determining their status. That's a lose-lose situation. Genuine asylum seekers suffer because it causes delay in processing their claim, and prevents them from getting their life back to normal. Taxpayers suffer, because it's costing us billions. The only people that gain are economic migrants that are being fed and sheltered far better than they would be back at home, and the big winners are private companies that are being paid to manage the accommodation for the asylum seekers. The largest of these companies is Serco. Serco are mostly owned by banks and investment companies, organisations like Goldman Sachs, who our Prime Minister used to work for. Something smells a bit fishy Rishi.

I mean they're only accepting 200 people 😂😂😂 it's all a farce

the implied result of this is that the court should have ordered the British government to sanction Rwanda for its breach of the refugee convention.

So is France a safe country?

Yeah but aren't they here illegally? It's got to play both ways.

They were safe in France so just send them back to France.

I hope we're getting a refund on this failed initiative. Rwanda is safe, our own Government declared that on the basis of its own due diligence. This decision is an absolute disgrace and an affront to the Rwanda population and their government. Shame the EU is still involved, didn't we vote to leave that control year's ago?

Seems straight forward Don't like the law Change the law Wish I was God.

So he’s going to change the law!

Just a couple of points: 1) Part of the agreement involved taking people from Rwanda. It was never a good idea, whether one is for or against accepting refugees. 2) This country managed for many years without a supreme court. It was only set up in 2007. 3) The supreme court hasn't done anything to protect our human rights. It didn't stop the outlawing of silent prayer and the right to a family life, which was taken away during lockdown.

It’s an exchange between UK and Rwanda of immigrants and asylum seekers. It’s nonsense

Great explanation I am in Australia and we've been going through these issues for longer. The third party thing is a false path in any ase. We're had such agreement with Kampuchea and surprisingly the US. We've also had off shore detention centres in Nauru and PNG The problem is at a huge cost an insignificant number of asylum seekers went to Kampuchea and the people sent to the US were the least problematic cases that were easily resolved. The lessons we've learnt is you can stop Asylum Seekers, but it will unravel in time in the courts and be at the cost of your humanity as a country.

What about them being a risk to the people and community? Maybe look what happened to Sweden common sense needed

Rwanda wasn’t even a scheme to reduce migration, after all it was an exchange scheme, one of ours for one of theirs!

What about Tommy Robinson can he be jailed for breaking injunction from corrupt judge for the film silenced?

Over 140 million wasted 👉🇬🇧👈👉😵❗❗❗

Personally think that us as a country should start by looking after us first! There is far too many homeless on the streets which is something we could solve, but sadly there is no money in it for the people in charge so it’ll never get done. Wars and asylum seekers do generate money for the government as they will have less opposition in the crazy spending that they do. So before sending weapons and money to the Ukraine (a proxy war we should of never got involved in) and taking in literally anyone into our country and welcoming them open handed(we did this for the Manchester arena bomber btw) let’s focus on our country’s needs first Make it impossible for asylum seekers to get paid for illegally coming into our country, they will then stop wanting to come! Oh and look at the boats that come in with them on, mostly single men… weird no?

Where this falls down is that the rights of the individual are being placed above the security needs of the Nation. A good job Winston Churchill did not.

Aren’t asylum seekers supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country they enter? If so then there are an awful lot of those before they arrived in the UK

The 'real' risk is less money, smaller room and if they mucked about over there, they would be dealt with WITHOUT the woke loonies saying boo

Yeah ,yeah....all pre planned

It was a smoke and mirrors con trick on the public,anyway, The government were going to take some of Rwanda's "most vulnerable asylum seekers" which would quite possibly mean Congolese fleeing that country, shell shocked, disabled and maimed. These people would need a lifetime of care and support, and would likely never ever contribute to the coffers. We might find a situation where 100 illegals were sent to Rwanda, and weyreceived 500 /1000/2000in return. The numbers were never stated, and this is deeply worrying, knowing the governments actions thus far.

I’m no leftie but the policy of sending people to a third country is totally insane and you’ll have to support them forever

So, they're full of rubbish. If they came here illegally, through Europe (Like, pretty much all of them.), their "safety" was already assured. Through their actions, what legalities apply to assume that they are telling the truth, that they'll be in danger? This is twisting of the law, they already broke our trust and are not victims.

Strange that Suella Braverman somehow knew the courts decision and hinted at it in her ‘I’m sacked’ letter

This is why we need a governement that can change the laws to ensure they can kick out anyone who comes tot eh UK through a safe third country. This is nothing more than migrant shopping for their first choice country so they can get put up in 4 star hotels.