Attending one a Politiea event earlier in the year regarding stopping the boats on behalf of the Bruges Group it could be summarised as somewhat hesitant of the bill only providing half measures to combat immigration.
The discussion revolved around the legal conservative perspective regarding the policy of "stopping the boats" through the lens of the Rwanda Bill, as outlined by various legal scholars and figures such as Anthony Speaight KC, , Sir Bill Cash, Martin Howe KC, and Lord Frost.
Speaight underscores the orthodox interpretation of the rule of law, emphasizing that all individuals and authorities are subject to the law as administered by the courts. Mentioning McCormick by discussing the orthodox interpretation of the Sovereign in the British constitution, asserting the UK's compliance with treaty obligations while maintaining that treaties are not part of domestic law.
Anthony mentions that Lord Bingham's expansion on the principles of law, particularly highlighting the necessity for law to protect human rights, is a liberal progression of judicial review. His views on the relationship between international law and English law, asserting that international law can serve as a source of English law, provide context for the evolving landscape.
Sir Bill Cash critiques what he perceives as a halfway house of law, challenging the extent to which parliamentary sovereignty is being exerted in common law. The Rwanda judgment is examined through Lord Reed's assertion of the principle of legality and the duty of the court to adhere to parliamentary sovereignty.
Martin Howe KC highlights concerns about the breakdown of law and order and the erosion of British control under international law. He criticizes the Strasbourg court for overreaching its mandate and acting as unelected legislators, particularly in asylum cases.
Lord Frost discusses the reluctance to fully disengage from EU influence, emphasizing the need to break free from the mental structures of EU legal dominance. He argues for the importance of recognizing the jurisdiction of British courts and the sovereignty of Parliament.
With all this articulated by the panellists for this Politeia event, It reminded me what had been completely thwarted last night and that was the agenda of how British Parliamentary Sovereignty how it had been undermined and how the Commons responded last night in an attempt to frantically get over and cross the line regarding.
To summarise what had went on last night
Lord Anderson of Ipswich moved Motion A1, as an amendment to Motion A, at end to insert ", and do propose Amendment 3J in lieu—
3J Clause 1, page 2, line 31, at end insert—
"(7) The Republic of Rwanda may be treated as a safe country for the purposes of this Act only once the Secretary of State, having consulted the Monitoring Committee formed under Article 15 of the Rwanda Treaty, has made a statement to Parliament to that effect.
(8) The Republic of Rwanda must cease to be treated as a safe country for the purposes of this Act once the Secretary of State has made a statement to Parliament to that effect.""
and in response the Conservative Government whipped all members Motion to appoint a Reasons Committee in respect of Lords Amendment 3J
The events in Parliament last night, particularly the motion proposed by Lord Anderson of Ipswich and the subsequent response by the Conservative Government, highlighted a critical tension between parliamentary sovereignty being completely watered down to a committee with no precedent dictating the future of what is authoritative in this bill .
Lord Anderson's proposed amendment, 3J, sought to insert clauses regarding the treatment of the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country under a specific Act. The significance here lies in the conditions outlined: Rwanda's designation as a safe country would be contingent upon the Secretary of State's consultation with the Monitoring Committee formed under Article 15 of the Rwanda Treaty and a subsequent statement made to Parliament. Moreover, Rwanda's status as a safe country would be revocable once the Secretary of State informs Parliament accordingly. This Hijacking to say by the House Lords is something to be wary about as this has just proved tonight not only are they a scrutinising chamber but they are still a political force that can at any time completely change the agenda further worsening the Conservative views since the House of Lords Act 1999 .
This motion ultimately represents an attempt to hijack parliamentary sovereignty and ensure that crucial decisions regarding the designation of safe countries are subject to not our Parliament like we have the power to but rather some overbearing committee that will get us onto our knees and beg. By requiring the Secretary of State to consult with a designated committee and make a statement to Parliament, Lord Anderson's amendment aims to uphold the principle of "International Law". (Even though the European Courts ruled that in Illias V Hungary that National Sovereignty trumps over International Obligations!)
By aggressively pushing for the appointment of a committee to scrutinize and potentially overturn the proposed amendment, the government is losing significant influence over Parliamentary Sovereignty. This could be interpreted as an attempt to circumvent the authority of Parliament by exerting pressure to ensure that legislation aligns with the International agenda, rather than allowing for genuine parliamentary debate and decision-making like what has been done for Hundreds of years.
