Rwanda asylum scheme ruled unlawful 
11 Likes
To be fair, ignoring Cruellaās rantings is possibly the most praiseworthy thing Sunak has ever done.
Supreme Court also said that the policy would be unlawful whether the UK was part of ECHR or not.
This should (but probably wonāt) stop Tory right wing agitating for leaving ECHR
Cleverly to give statement to MPs at about 12.30
Sunak holding press conference at 4.45
5 Likes
PMās questions, Sunak has said basically that heāll change the law to get his own way over Rhwanda. Honesty and integrity at its best.
1 Like
Er you clearly donāt respect the law, courts or justice if all you do is bypass them in a tantrum like a petulant little spoilt brat to get your own way.
What an utterly despicable cunt
- Rishi Sunak began his statement by saying he did not agree with the Supreme Courtās decision but he respected and accepted it
- The PM said he would introduce āemergency legislationā that would enable Parliament to āconfirm Rwanda is safeā, aiming to stop a stream of legal challenges
7 Likes
Dearest Tards,
You got your āsovereigntyā back (It wasnāt missing) and your law says āno you canāt catapult traumatized people across the globe like toxic wasteā. Soz.
4 Likes
I canāt help wondering if āDear cuntsā would be a more suitable start to the above.
Or maybe just ācuntsāā¦
GE now!
1 Like
7 Likes
Conservatives. The bubble tea of politics.
2 Likes
Supreme Court - Rwanda is not a safe country.
Sunak - Weāll pass a law that says Rwanda is a safe country.
So, the government is determined to pervert logic in order to be able to send traumatised people to an unsafe country in order to placate the racist scum that infest their party.
Thatās some next level cuntery and shockingly poor election strategy. Thereās no way anyone who is not a racist will vote for this shower of misanthropic heartless cunts.
2 Likes
The government is perfectly entitled to pass such legislation, it was in fact the plan of Boris, who has been tweeting that fact like he stole it all afternoon.
The reason it wasnāt done is that it might not get the support of the Tory MPs and would certainly be delayed by the Lords.
The Supreme Court can only rule against existing law, law can always be changed.
Once that law is in place they will then have to deal with the ECHR, where a challenge will inevitably be made. This will all drag on into the next election where it will become an election issue.
Boris is already chanting Get Rwanda Done,
Wankers.
4 Likes
That is sort of how the appealed to the Red Wall. Look at all them foreigners taking your money, whilst taking their money.
Think the have reading up on Goebbels or summat like that.
1 Like
Labour split on ceasefire vote and 6 front bench resignations will not help Starmer to show a united cohesive alternative at the next election.
Although sadly this scenario has a long way to run and there will be more upheaval across Westminster because of it.
I appreciate that there ias another thtread to discuss the conflict itself, but there is an inevitable knock on effect into domestic politics.
Starmer is shit scared of upsetting Jews, Israel, any accusations of anti-semitism or giving the tories/media any form of ammo. It doesnāt matter if they have zero basis for accusations of anti-semitism etc. He has decided the best approach is to keep quiet, hide and just agree with everything Israel or the US say.
That stupid cunt Corbyn has royally fucked the labour party.
Heard this clip yesterday on the News Agents, classic Corbyn:
https://x.com/PiersUncensored/status/1724182924726067474?s=20
Last time there was an āAre you a racist mouth-breatherā question to vote on, 52% voted yes. Your post has given me the fear nowā¦
7 Likes
I appear to have seriously under-estimated the size of the mouth-breathing racist community in England. Oops.
The fact a labour front bench mp feels the need to resign or be sacked for voting for a ceasefire and less death of innocents is a sad indictment on Starmerās labour.
3 Likes
There is an arguement that on matters of conscience there should be a free vote.
That would probably have meant even more MPs voting for the SNP amendment.
That could be easily construed as a weakness in leadership and that Starmer couldnāt control the party.
I have avoided the thread on the conflict and donāt want to get involved ina discussion about it specifically but I think Starmer is trying to show statesmanship and is taking the same position as the UK government have for the same reasons.
Skeletal deficiences. Heās the opposition ffs.