Earlier this year – following an intervention by the European Court of Human Rights, the flight chartered to transport asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda as part of a new government policy was grounded.
The plan to deport asylum seekers for processing in Rwanda is intended to deter people from making the dangerous journey across the Channel to the UK.
The UK government has already responded negatively to this decision, stating that plans for future flights are already in the works.
MPs voted against a bill calling on Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to disregard European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rulings and resume deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda yesterday.
Tory MP Jonathan Gullis introduced the Asylum-Seekers Bill, claiming that it “will ensure that Parliament, not unaccountable foreign judges in Europe,” has the final say.
Mr Gullis mentioned that the Bill would allow “illegal migrants who have entered the UK to board flights to Rwanda” and be transported to other “safe” countries.
He said: “Thereby changing the law to explicitly ignore the European Court of Human Rights from meddling in our sovereignty on this specific matter. This Bill is about demonstrating that Parliament is on the side of the British public in restoring our great nation’s territorial integrity.”
During Prime Minister’s Questions on December 14, Tory MP Danny Kruger called for Mr Sunak to forge a “new framework for refugees and human rights” and claimed the ECHR was “limiting our ability to control our borders”.
Mr Sunak’s response did not directly address the question, instead referring to his new five-point plan to address the migrant crisis.
However, Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab, who has previously supported staying in the ECHR, said earlier this week that “nothing is off the table for the future”.
The court is not connected to the European Union, and after Brexit, the UK remains a member.
So, what are your thoughts? Should UK withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights?