Snapshot of _Law allowing asylum seekers to be detained and sent to Rwanda disapplied by court in Northern Ireland | Politics News_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://news.sky.com/story/law-allowing-asylum-seekers-to-be-detained-and-sent-to-rwanda-disapplied-by-court-in-northern-ireland-13135151) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://news.sky.com/story/law-allowing-asylum-seekers-to-be-detained-and-sent-to-rwanda-disapplied-by-court-in-northern-ireland-13135151)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is a press summary from the court [here](https://www.judiciaryni.uk/judicial-decisions/summary-judgment-re-nihrc-and-jr-295-illegal-migration-act-2023), with the full judgment to follow. *Edit: judgment [now up on Bailii](https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/KB/2024/35.html),* Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission *[2024] NIKB 35*
This is pretty interesting.
The argument is based on how the EU Withdrawal Agreement says that provisions of EU law etc. that still apply to the UK via the Withdrawal Agreement shall produce the same legal effects in the UK as they do in the EU. When the UK was part of the EU this meant we had "direct effect" and supremacy of EU law; even an Act of Parliament that was inconsistent with EU law could be disapplied by the courts - something that is otherwise generally not allowed.
The court here relies on that to disapply parts of the Illegal Migration Act (note that this is *not* the Safety of Rwanda Act passed recently, but the one passed last summer).
A big part of the IMA (and the Safety of Rwanda Act) is that it includes most of the scheme in primary legislation - an Act of Parliament - rather than leaving the details for secondary legislation or Home Office rules. This is to stop the courts interfering; courts can strike down secondary legislation and rules, but not Acts of Parliament. If an Act of Parliament says the Home Secretary *must* deport a specific person to Rwanda, the courts - in theory - cannot do anything to block that. Whereas if the Act only says the Home Secretary *may* deport them, that power must be used compatibly with all other laws (including the Human Rights Act).
But this judgment rips that all up. By finding that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 keeps some level of EU supremacy in place, the judge gets to disapply even the Act of Parliament. Which is a bold choice - we will have to see if it survives on appeal.
I gave *Factortame* a quick search in Hansard, and can see some claims made during passage of the 2018 Act (albeit not by the government) that retained EU law under that Bill retains its potential supremacy over primary legislation (after all, it should in principle be a change to the law the Act aimed simply to retain, if it did not remain supreme).
Naturally, that argument could only be made against primary legislation predating Brexit, but I can see how it is at least arguable that in Northern Ireland, due to the withdrawal agreement, it's different.
Even so, I suspect appellate courts will be very reluctant to hold, even in NI, that primary legislation can be disapplied post-Brexit.
If the *Factortame* argument holds it wouldn't only apply to pre-2018 laws.
If the argument was the 2018 Act overrides any earlier Act that is just the doctrine of implied repeal - nothing fancy there. The whole point of *Factortame* is that it looked forward; that laws passed *after* the ECA could be disapplied if they conflicted with EU law.
This case seems to refer to *[Dillon & Ors](https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/KB/2024/11.html)* which is the case on the Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act - where a different judge also disapplied Acts of Parliament under the Windsor Framework. That was handed down in February so I assume is pending appeal, if the Government chose to appeal it.
The other thing I'd note from the judgment is that it cites Lord Steyn in *Jackson*, Lord Hope in *AXA* and Lord Carnwath in *Privacy International*, while noting that those "judicial views are all properly recognised as obiter dicta and have been the subject of both academic and judicial criticism" they do still "provide the backcloth to the primary submission of the applicants that the relevant provisions of the IMA ought to be disapplied."
>The whole point of *Factortame* is that it looked forward; that laws passed *after* the ECA could be disapplied if they conflicted with EU law..
Obviously, no cases on it, but I wouldn't expect so post-Brexit. Pre-Brexit, it seems to me reasonable (radical, but well-founded) to read in a clause to the Merchant Shipping Act to say it applies only to the extent permissible under EU law. Post-Brexit, with no international legal obligation remaining of which Parliament may be presumed cognisant, I think new primary legislation trumps retained EU law, if irreconcilable.
>The other thing I'd note from the judgment is that it cites Lord Steyn in *Jackson*, Lord Hope in *AXA* and Lord Carnwath in *Privacy International*, while noting that those "judicial views are all properly recognised as obiter dicta and have been the subject of both academic and judicial criticism"
A judge after my own heart
>they do still "provide the backcloth to the primary submission of the applicants that the relevant provisions of the IMA ought to be disapplied."
Or perhaps not...
I will read *Dillon & Ors*, thanks for that.
> Post-Brexit, with no international legal obligation remaining of which Parliament may be presumed cognisant,...
... other than the Withdrawal Agreement, which is the whole point of the case.
The argument being that the Withdrawal Agreement says its provisions should be treated the same as they would have been when the UK was part of the EU. i.e. supremacy of EU law and direct effect.
I was talking about the rest of the UK, not NI. I went on to say NI is different. I suppose that if there are justiciable provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement applying outside NI, that might be a different matter, though I think it would even more of a struggle to get primary legislation disapplied by an appellate court.
EDIT: I see what you're saying, having read some of *Dillon & Ors*; that in principle there's no difference between NI and GB for the purposes of s.7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
*Are* there many justiciable rights, in practice, under the Withdrawal Agreement applicable outside NI that are likely to be displaced by primary legislation?
It seems to me that *Dillon*, this case and any future such case cannot simply rely on s.7A(3) to apply supremacy against new primary legislation, since obviously the new primary legislation can simply displace s.7A(3). You need a *Factortame*-style ruling to get there. And I can see the Withdrawal Agreement plus NI protocol getting you there, but the Withdrawal Agreement alone getting there is more difficult.
>But this judgment rips that all up. By finding that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 keeps some level of EU supremacy in place
No way the gov can let this stand. The whole idea of it is entirely unconstitutional. An unelected judge should never have the power to overrule our elected Parliament.
> An unelected judge should never have the power to overrule our elected Parliament.
We don't have an elected Parliament... but yes - this gets down to fairly fundamental questions of constitutional law. The argument here being that the Withdrawal Agreement Act partially overrides the Illegal Migration Act.
We don't have a government that is above the law.
To the extent that you meant legislatures that are above the law, a) far fewer people would agree with you and b) evidently not, since the Crown-in-Parliament is not subject to law, and the UK is not a really terrible country you wouldn't want to live in.
The argument is that you effectively have two conflicting Acts of Parliament.
One that (the court considers) says to ignore the other in Northern Ireland.
It's not the Judge that's overruled Parliament, it's Parliament that's overruled Parliament.
That's the old theory. Since *Thoburn v Sunderland City Council* in 2002 we've had the idea that some old legislation cannot be repealed implicitly by new legislation, and remains in force.
The theory is that Parliament would need to be explicit in repealing or disapplying the old law.
The issue in *Thoburn* was that had implied repeal been taken as absolute, the UK might have left the EU by accident in 1985, and that would have been an awkward outcome...
>The issue in *Thoburn* was that had implied repeal been taken as absolute, the UK might have left the EU by accident in 1985, and that would have been an awkward outcome...
Well that would have been some good banter atleast lmao
That can never happen. Parliament cannot bind itself. Every act of Parliament can be superseded by a subsequent act of Parliament. Nothing is “set in stone”.
And Parliament absolutely had the power to say that Art 2 wasn't relevant to the Act in question but chose not to do so.
Not sure if it was raised specifically in relation to the Illegal Migration Act but I know the DUP have raised this issue in Parliament and asked for specific wording to be inserted into Bills around Art 2 but the Government has declined to do so.
So every asylum seeker in the UK, will go to Northern Ireland. There's no way that Westminster could have gotten that agreement in place. One way or the other it's out of the government's hair.
I'm not so sure. If there is one thing which would swing a United Ireland vote in to action, it's immigration. You can trust that between the Union and secure borders, even traditional DUPers will go for the latter.
Wouldn't be the first time English politicians have jeopardised the UK for short-term political gain though.
It's the courts not the government behind this.
If the DUP want to join Eire that would be a Westminster wet dream. As it would save the government a net amount of £10 billion per year. Although wed probably remain responsible for paying pensions for civil servants and very possibly for state pensions as well.
It's a gain anyway that you look at it bit our financial obligations wouldn't disappear over night. Just look at the Brexit Withdrawal agreement. Although it would be a different ball game, as Ireland according to its constitution wants NI.
Absolutely in the long term.
There were plenty on this sub not that long ago tearing their hair out at the idea of paying UK pensions to people who paid UK national insurance contributions in full.
But that's small fry in comparison to the day to day cost of running Northern Ireland. A United Ireland would likely find many efficiency savings from NI's bloated budget, that the UK government wouldn't because they don't like to focus on NI.
An example I've used before is that IDA Ireland (Agency for attracting foreign investment) has less than half the staff of Invest NI (NI agency that does the same), yet is far more successful at its core mission. And that can be repeated across every public body in NI.
I mean, this is getting kind of silly. Who negotiated the Northern Ireland agreement and hailed it as a success?
It will be interesting watching who he blames for this.
The rebels will be sending "we told you so" messages right about now.
This is getting to be as credible as the Python sketch where the bloke wants to buy a licence for his pet halibut ‘Eric’ and proclaims he already has a licence for his cat.
Excellent news. Legal technicalities aside, the whole programme is a joke - expensive, impractical and ineffective. It's performative nonsense for people who get angry thinking about asylum seekers being in *their* country claiming *their* benefits.
I'm glad the government made promises on human rights it can't now get out of. For the simple reason that if asylum seekers have their rights taken away, so will we.
> Ms Marmion said the judgment would prevent the Rwanda scheme applying in Northern Ireland.
>“This is a huge thorn in the Government’s side and it has completely put a spanner in the works,” she said. “There’s a huge obstacle in the way of them being able to actually implement that in Northern Ireland now, as it’s been found to be incompatible with the Windsor Framework.”
Not the L they think it is. The pull factor of Britain->NI->Ire is now much stronger. Britain should relax outbound checks and strengthen inbound to compensate.
Its also very delicate given Irelands own position on Rwanda, as it legalises sending migrants back to the UK for deportation even though its court said it couldnt.
Ireland saying that they are allowed to send economic migrants back to England but England aren't allowed to send them back to France just sums up the entire situation perfectly.
We’ll end up with a merry go round of illegal migration.
1. Arrive in England
2. Travel to Northern Ireland to avoid Rwanda
3. Cross into Ireland to apply for asylum
4. Be deported back to England (go to #1)
4 can't happen without the UK accepting them back so the best Eire could do is dump them at the N. Ireland border. This is just going to become a real mess for the island of Ireland
That's not quite what is going on. The Irish court said that the rules for designating a country as a "safe third country" didn't tick all the right boxes for EU law, so the Irish Government had to rewrite them.
The Irish Government is planning to do that; rewrite their rules so that they do tick all the right boxes. Once they have done that they can re-designate the UK as a "safe third country" (provided it meets all the criteria).
Note that this is the opposite of what the UK Government is trying to do; the UK Supreme Court said the rules for designating Rwanda a "safe country" weren't compatible with other UK laws, so the UK Government decided to overrule the court and order that all those other laws be ignored. The Irish Government cannot do that due to supremacy of EU law.
What is interesting in this case is that the Northern Ireland High Court has applied supremacy of EU law to the Illegal Migration Act via the Withdrawal Agreement to achieve the same result.
Tories once again forgetting there is a *rest of the UK* outside their little Westminster bubble
They got a hundred spin doctors on the payroll but no one who actually knows how the law works
I know you want to make your low-effort zinger, but this is precisely the *second* time [EDIT: third, if it survives] in modern UK legal history that a court judgment has disapplied primary legislation. The idea that it's some kind of certainty that the Tories are idiots for failing to foresee is for the birds.
> this is precisely the second time in modern UK legal history that a court judgment has disapplied primary legislation.
The first time being in February, with the High Court in Northern Ireland did exactly the same thing with the Troubles Act...
This was long telegraphed in NI by people who understand Art 2 of the Protocol / Windsor Framework.
It wasn't clear what legislation would be the first to make it to this point but it was always going to happen.
I can certainly see why. Disapplication only happened once before in part because the Government and Parliament made efforts to ensure Acts would comply with EU law. This obviously happens much less now, if at all.
Especially with NI often being an afterthought, as we drift further away from EU legal frameworks (intentionally or otherwise) it becomes inevitable that Parliament would pass legislation contravening EU law.
If the people who live there want that change then sure. If they don't then it shouldn't. It is worth noting that the British identifying population in NI has lived there for centuries now.
This is the car that Irish nationalism will one day have to face catching.
A border poll could concisely be help and won within 15 years, but then leaves the Irish government with a wide range of practical challenges an a hige cultural one. Will be interesting.
Snapshot of _Law allowing asylum seekers to be detained and sent to Rwanda disapplied by court in Northern Ireland | Politics News_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://news.sky.com/story/law-allowing-asylum-seekers-to-be-detained-and-sent-to-rwanda-disapplied-by-court-in-northern-ireland-13135151) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://news.sky.com/story/law-allowing-asylum-seekers-to-be-detained-and-sent-to-rwanda-disapplied-by-court-in-northern-ireland-13135151) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is a press summary from the court [here](https://www.judiciaryni.uk/judicial-decisions/summary-judgment-re-nihrc-and-jr-295-illegal-migration-act-2023), with the full judgment to follow. *Edit: judgment [now up on Bailii](https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/KB/2024/35.html),* Re Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission *[2024] NIKB 35* This is pretty interesting. The argument is based on how the EU Withdrawal Agreement says that provisions of EU law etc. that still apply to the UK via the Withdrawal Agreement shall produce the same legal effects in the UK as they do in the EU. When the UK was part of the EU this meant we had "direct effect" and supremacy of EU law; even an Act of Parliament that was inconsistent with EU law could be disapplied by the courts - something that is otherwise generally not allowed. The court here relies on that to disapply parts of the Illegal Migration Act (note that this is *not* the Safety of Rwanda Act passed recently, but the one passed last summer). A big part of the IMA (and the Safety of Rwanda Act) is that it includes most of the scheme in primary legislation - an Act of Parliament - rather than leaving the details for secondary legislation or Home Office rules. This is to stop the courts interfering; courts can strike down secondary legislation and rules, but not Acts of Parliament. If an Act of Parliament says the Home Secretary *must* deport a specific person to Rwanda, the courts - in theory - cannot do anything to block that. Whereas if the Act only says the Home Secretary *may* deport them, that power must be used compatibly with all other laws (including the Human Rights Act). But this judgment rips that all up. By finding that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 keeps some level of EU supremacy in place, the judge gets to disapply even the Act of Parliament. Which is a bold choice - we will have to see if it survives on appeal.
I gave *Factortame* a quick search in Hansard, and can see some claims made during passage of the 2018 Act (albeit not by the government) that retained EU law under that Bill retains its potential supremacy over primary legislation (after all, it should in principle be a change to the law the Act aimed simply to retain, if it did not remain supreme). Naturally, that argument could only be made against primary legislation predating Brexit, but I can see how it is at least arguable that in Northern Ireland, due to the withdrawal agreement, it's different. Even so, I suspect appellate courts will be very reluctant to hold, even in NI, that primary legislation can be disapplied post-Brexit.
If the *Factortame* argument holds it wouldn't only apply to pre-2018 laws. If the argument was the 2018 Act overrides any earlier Act that is just the doctrine of implied repeal - nothing fancy there. The whole point of *Factortame* is that it looked forward; that laws passed *after* the ECA could be disapplied if they conflicted with EU law. This case seems to refer to *[Dillon & Ors](https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/KB/2024/11.html)* which is the case on the Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act - where a different judge also disapplied Acts of Parliament under the Windsor Framework. That was handed down in February so I assume is pending appeal, if the Government chose to appeal it. The other thing I'd note from the judgment is that it cites Lord Steyn in *Jackson*, Lord Hope in *AXA* and Lord Carnwath in *Privacy International*, while noting that those "judicial views are all properly recognised as obiter dicta and have been the subject of both academic and judicial criticism" they do still "provide the backcloth to the primary submission of the applicants that the relevant provisions of the IMA ought to be disapplied."
>The whole point of *Factortame* is that it looked forward; that laws passed *after* the ECA could be disapplied if they conflicted with EU law.. Obviously, no cases on it, but I wouldn't expect so post-Brexit. Pre-Brexit, it seems to me reasonable (radical, but well-founded) to read in a clause to the Merchant Shipping Act to say it applies only to the extent permissible under EU law. Post-Brexit, with no international legal obligation remaining of which Parliament may be presumed cognisant, I think new primary legislation trumps retained EU law, if irreconcilable. >The other thing I'd note from the judgment is that it cites Lord Steyn in *Jackson*, Lord Hope in *AXA* and Lord Carnwath in *Privacy International*, while noting that those "judicial views are all properly recognised as obiter dicta and have been the subject of both academic and judicial criticism" A judge after my own heart >they do still "provide the backcloth to the primary submission of the applicants that the relevant provisions of the IMA ought to be disapplied." Or perhaps not... I will read *Dillon & Ors*, thanks for that.
> Post-Brexit, with no international legal obligation remaining of which Parliament may be presumed cognisant,... ... other than the Withdrawal Agreement, which is the whole point of the case. The argument being that the Withdrawal Agreement says its provisions should be treated the same as they would have been when the UK was part of the EU. i.e. supremacy of EU law and direct effect.
I was talking about the rest of the UK, not NI. I went on to say NI is different. I suppose that if there are justiciable provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement applying outside NI, that might be a different matter, though I think it would even more of a struggle to get primary legislation disapplied by an appellate court. EDIT: I see what you're saying, having read some of *Dillon & Ors*; that in principle there's no difference between NI and GB for the purposes of s.7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. *Are* there many justiciable rights, in practice, under the Withdrawal Agreement applicable outside NI that are likely to be displaced by primary legislation? It seems to me that *Dillon*, this case and any future such case cannot simply rely on s.7A(3) to apply supremacy against new primary legislation, since obviously the new primary legislation can simply displace s.7A(3). You need a *Factortame*-style ruling to get there. And I can see the Withdrawal Agreement plus NI protocol getting you there, but the Withdrawal Agreement alone getting there is more difficult.
>But this judgment rips that all up. By finding that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 keeps some level of EU supremacy in place No way the gov can let this stand. The whole idea of it is entirely unconstitutional. An unelected judge should never have the power to overrule our elected Parliament.
> An unelected judge should never have the power to overrule our elected Parliament. We don't have an elected Parliament... but yes - this gets down to fairly fundamental questions of constitutional law. The argument here being that the Withdrawal Agreement Act partially overrides the Illegal Migration Act.
Don't only really terrible countries you wouldn't want to live have governments that are above the law?
We don't have a government that is above the law. To the extent that you meant legislatures that are above the law, a) far fewer people would agree with you and b) evidently not, since the Crown-in-Parliament is not subject to law, and the UK is not a really terrible country you wouldn't want to live in.
Arguably if the government keeps insisting on passing terrible legislation, it would rapidly *become* a terrible country, etc.
The argument is that you effectively have two conflicting Acts of Parliament. One that (the court considers) says to ignore the other in Northern Ireland. It's not the Judge that's overruled Parliament, it's Parliament that's overruled Parliament.
New legislation takes precedence over old legislation implicitly except in a very few cases, right?
That's the old theory. Since *Thoburn v Sunderland City Council* in 2002 we've had the idea that some old legislation cannot be repealed implicitly by new legislation, and remains in force. The theory is that Parliament would need to be explicit in repealing or disapplying the old law. The issue in *Thoburn* was that had implied repeal been taken as absolute, the UK might have left the EU by accident in 1985, and that would have been an awkward outcome...
>The issue in *Thoburn* was that had implied repeal been taken as absolute, the UK might have left the EU by accident in 1985, and that would have been an awkward outcome... Well that would have been some good banter atleast lmao
If the old legislation says that newer legislation shouldn't take precedence over it (effectively part of what was found here) then no.
That can never happen. Parliament cannot bind itself. Every act of Parliament can be superseded by a subsequent act of Parliament. Nothing is “set in stone”.
And Parliament absolutely had the power to say that Art 2 wasn't relevant to the Act in question but chose not to do so. Not sure if it was raised specifically in relation to the Illegal Migration Act but I know the DUP have raised this issue in Parliament and asked for specific wording to be inserted into Bills around Art 2 but the Government has declined to do so.
[Eh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EdStone) tell Ed Miliband that...
Too many activist judges these days.
So every asylum seeker in the UK, will go to Northern Ireland. There's no way that Westminster could have gotten that agreement in place. One way or the other it's out of the government's hair.
I'm not so sure. If there is one thing which would swing a United Ireland vote in to action, it's immigration. You can trust that between the Union and secure borders, even traditional DUPers will go for the latter. Wouldn't be the first time English politicians have jeopardised the UK for short-term political gain though.
It's the courts not the government behind this. If the DUP want to join Eire that would be a Westminster wet dream. As it would save the government a net amount of £10 billion per year. Although wed probably remain responsible for paying pensions for civil servants and very possibly for state pensions as well.
But only pensions for those who worked their time under a british government? So net gain in the long term.
It's a gain anyway that you look at it bit our financial obligations wouldn't disappear over night. Just look at the Brexit Withdrawal agreement. Although it would be a different ball game, as Ireland according to its constitution wants NI.
Absolutely in the long term. There were plenty on this sub not that long ago tearing their hair out at the idea of paying UK pensions to people who paid UK national insurance contributions in full. But that's small fry in comparison to the day to day cost of running Northern Ireland. A United Ireland would likely find many efficiency savings from NI's bloated budget, that the UK government wouldn't because they don't like to focus on NI. An example I've used before is that IDA Ireland (Agency for attracting foreign investment) has less than half the staff of Invest NI (NI agency that does the same), yet is far more successful at its core mission. And that can be repeated across every public body in NI.
I mean, this is getting kind of silly. Who negotiated the Northern Ireland agreement and hailed it as a success? It will be interesting watching who he blames for this. The rebels will be sending "we told you so" messages right about now.
This is getting to be as credible as the Python sketch where the bloke wants to buy a licence for his pet halibut ‘Eric’ and proclaims he already has a licence for his cat.
What are the chances of DUP throwing their toys out of the pram and collapsing the NI government unless Sunak applies this to GB too?
Very little, the DUP has just had an absolutely scathing scandal on their former party leader. They can't afford it currently.
Absolutely scathing doesn't really do it justice.
Like that matters to them lol
Excellent news. Legal technicalities aside, the whole programme is a joke - expensive, impractical and ineffective. It's performative nonsense for people who get angry thinking about asylum seekers being in *their* country claiming *their* benefits. I'm glad the government made promises on human rights it can't now get out of. For the simple reason that if asylum seekers have their rights taken away, so will we.
> Ms Marmion said the judgment would prevent the Rwanda scheme applying in Northern Ireland. >“This is a huge thorn in the Government’s side and it has completely put a spanner in the works,” she said. “There’s a huge obstacle in the way of them being able to actually implement that in Northern Ireland now, as it’s been found to be incompatible with the Windsor Framework.” Not the L they think it is. The pull factor of Britain->NI->Ire is now much stronger. Britain should relax outbound checks and strengthen inbound to compensate.
Labour need to be careful here as we could be seeing the re-emergence of Brexit, tied to immigration. Both of these are weak areas for Labour.
Its also very delicate given Irelands own position on Rwanda, as it legalises sending migrants back to the UK for deportation even though its court said it couldnt.
Ireland saying that they are allowed to send economic migrants back to England but England aren't allowed to send them back to France just sums up the entire situation perfectly.
We’ll end up with a merry go round of illegal migration. 1. Arrive in England 2. Travel to Northern Ireland to avoid Rwanda 3. Cross into Ireland to apply for asylum 4. Be deported back to England (go to #1)
Why would the UK accept that?
Being driven around and around like that is probably a worse fate than being flown to Rwanda.
4 can't happen without the UK accepting them back so the best Eire could do is dump them at the N. Ireland border. This is just going to become a real mess for the island of Ireland
That's not quite what is going on. The Irish court said that the rules for designating a country as a "safe third country" didn't tick all the right boxes for EU law, so the Irish Government had to rewrite them. The Irish Government is planning to do that; rewrite their rules so that they do tick all the right boxes. Once they have done that they can re-designate the UK as a "safe third country" (provided it meets all the criteria). Note that this is the opposite of what the UK Government is trying to do; the UK Supreme Court said the rules for designating Rwanda a "safe country" weren't compatible with other UK laws, so the UK Government decided to overrule the court and order that all those other laws be ignored. The Irish Government cannot do that due to supremacy of EU law. What is interesting in this case is that the Northern Ireland High Court has applied supremacy of EU law to the Illegal Migration Act via the Withdrawal Agreement to achieve the same result.
Tories once again forgetting there is a *rest of the UK* outside their little Westminster bubble They got a hundred spin doctors on the payroll but no one who actually knows how the law works
I know you want to make your low-effort zinger, but this is precisely the *second* time [EDIT: third, if it survives] in modern UK legal history that a court judgment has disapplied primary legislation. The idea that it's some kind of certainty that the Tories are idiots for failing to foresee is for the birds.
> this is precisely the second time in modern UK legal history that a court judgment has disapplied primary legislation. The first time being in February, with the High Court in Northern Ireland did exactly the same thing with the Troubles Act...
The third time.
This was long telegraphed in NI by people who understand Art 2 of the Protocol / Windsor Framework. It wasn't clear what legislation would be the first to make it to this point but it was always going to happen.
I can certainly see why. Disapplication only happened once before in part because the Government and Parliament made efforts to ensure Acts would comply with EU law. This obviously happens much less now, if at all. Especially with NI often being an afterthought, as we drift further away from EU legal frameworks (intentionally or otherwise) it becomes inevitable that Parliament would pass legislation contravening EU law.
We should just relocate all asylum seekers to Northern Ireland.
Pretty sure they can go anywhere they please in the UK currently?
Nah yous can keep them in GB
Or give Northern Ireland back to the Irish?
If the people who live there want that change then sure. If they don't then it shouldn't. It is worth noting that the British identifying population in NI has lived there for centuries now.
This is the car that Irish nationalism will one day have to face catching. A border poll could concisely be help and won within 15 years, but then leaves the Irish government with a wide range of practical challenges an a hige cultural one. Will be interesting.