Brits, please explain [Sunak to LEGALIZE SLAVERY for undocumented immigrants, trafficked victims]

[Blue3]

Like what even is this...

https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1633158789103747072

[Torrain]

One of Theresa May’s focuses, as Home Secretary (our equivalent to the US DHS Sec, or a European Interior Minister) and then as PM, was combatting what’s referred to as ‘modern slavery’ - a blanket term for human trafficking and illegal employment for little or no pay, that often includes coercion and false imprisonment.

May’s modern slavery law was designed to cut down on this practise, and provide additional legal protections for victims. One of the most prominent criticisms from the UK right, has been that the legislation let migrants make spurious claims, and prolong their time in the country while their case is processed.

This criticism has gotten louder in recent years, as one of the domestic issues here is the arrival of refugees and economic migrants who come across the Channel from France in small boats. The high density of Conservative politicians, staff and activists from the counties that contain the southern coast has led to an inflated sense of this issue as essential to win back votes. Hence Sunak making “STOP THE BOATS” one of his priorities and slogans.

Our current PM, somewhat politically paralysed by a fractious party, with an absolute immigration hardliner as Home Secretary, and advised by the same set of Australian advisors who brought you Tony Abbot and ScoMo, has decided that he’s going to bar illegal immigrants (the group most vulnerable, mind) access to the protections afforded under the act.

This government is 20% behind in the polls, a historic low for the Conservative party. This is one of the last death rattles - as they try desperately to find some wedge issue they can use against Labour. Basically no one thinks this will actually “Stop The Boats”, and many think it’ll be unenforcable - which may actually be the strategy at this point. Sunak’s remark about Lefty Lawyers “getting in our way”, is probably a prelude to some awful bit of electioneering…

[Zinneke]

Britain like most democratic countries has modern slavery laws dating back a while.

This tweet is basically saying people who entered the country illegally will not be able to benefit from these laws. Which is sick.

One of my favourite British cultural programs, Monkey Dust, was a great predictor of the future :

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=T0aBS4FmFhw

[CumbrianLefty]

There is nothing meaningful to "explain", save that it is dog whistle nonsense.

[Blue3]

There is nothing meaningful to "explain", save that it is dog whistle nonsense.

This isn't even dog whistle.

It legalizes slavery as long as it's illegal human trafficking.

[Hnv1]

One of Theresa May’s focuses, as Home Secretary (our equivalent to the US DHS Sec, or a European Interior Minister) and then as PM, was combatting what’s referred to as ‘modern slavery’ - a blanket term for human trafficking and illegal employment for little or no pay, that often includes coercion and false imprisonment.

May’s modern slavery law was designed to cut down on this practise, and provide additional legal protections for victims. One of the most prominent criticisms from the UK right, has been that the legislation let migrants make spurious claims, and prolong their time in the country while their case is processed.

This criticism has gotten louder in recent years, as one of the domestic issues here is the arrival of refugees and economic migrants who come across the Channel from France in small boats. The high density of Conservative politicians, staff and activists from the counties that contain the southern coast has led to an inflated sense of this issue as essential to win back votes. Hence Sunak making “STOP THE BOATS” one of his priorities and slogans.

Our current PM, somewhat politically paralysed by a fractious party, with an absolute immigration hardliner as Home Secretary, and advised by the same set of Australian advisors who brought you Tony Abbot and ScoMo, has decided that he’s going to bar illegal immigrants (the group most vulnerable, mind) access to the protections afforded under the act.

This government is 20% behind in the polls, a historic low for the Conservative party. This is one of the last death rattles - as they try desperately to find some wedge issue they can use against Labour. Basically no one thinks this will actually “Stop The Boats”, and many think it’ll be struck down as illegal - which may actually be the strategy at this point. Sunak’s remark about Lefty Lawyers “getting in our way”, is probably a prelude to some awful bit of electioneering…

Can Blair’s Supreme Court strike down primary legislation? I know what Lord Cooke wrote but I don’t think it was ever practiced

[Torrain]

Can Blair’s Supreme Court strike down primary legislation? I know what Lord Cooke wrote but I don’t think it was ever practiced

Phrasing was poor on my part - primary legislation won't/can't be struck down by the Supreme Court, given parliamentary sovereignty is one of, perhaps the fundamental principle of the UK constitution.

It's more that the bill will get bogged down in legal fights over pre-existing human rights legislation, with certain penalties declared "unlawful" by the courts, and "incompatible" with our obligations under a number of different treaties.

Breaches of the ECHR and UNHCR will both be alleged, and we'll probably still be locked into expensive, constitutionally taxing legal proceedings by the time the next election rolls around - with no real change in the status quo.

[Antonio the Sixth]

........................................

this is just. wow

[Hnv1]

Can Blair’s Supreme Court strike down primary legislation? I know what Lord Cooke wrote but I don’t think it was ever practiced

Phrasing was poor on my part - primary legislation won't/can't be struck down by the Supreme Court, given parliamentary sovereignty is one of, perhaps the fundamental principle of the UK constitution.

It's more that the bill will get bogged down in legal fights over pre-existing human rights legislation, with certain penalties declared "unlawful" by the courts, and "incompatible" with our obligations under a number of different treaties.

Breaches of the ECHR and UNHCR will both be alleged, and we'll probably still be locked into expensive, constitutionally taxing legal proceedings by the time the next election rolls around - with no real change in the status quo.

The lords will most likely stall the legislation as is

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Can Blair’s Supreme Court strike down primary legislation? I know what Lord Cooke wrote but I don’t think it was ever practiced

Phrasing was poor on my part - primary legislation won't/can't be struck down by the Supreme Court, given parliamentary sovereignty is one of, perhaps the fundamental principle of the UK constitution.

It's more that the bill will get bogged down in legal fights over pre-existing human rights legislation, with certain penalties declared "unlawful" by the courts, and "incompatible" with our obligations under a number of different treaties.

Breaches of the ECHR and UNHCR will both be alleged, and we'll probably still be locked into expensive, constitutionally taxing legal proceedings by the time the next election rolls around - with no real change in the status quo.

The lords will most likely stall the legislation as is

Especially as it (obviously) did not feature in the government's Manifesto at the last election.

[Hnv1]

Can Blair’s Supreme Court strike down primary legislation? I know what Lord Cooke wrote but I don’t think it was ever practiced

Phrasing was poor on my part - primary legislation won't/can't be struck down by the Supreme Court, given parliamentary sovereignty is one of, perhaps the fundamental principle of the UK constitution.

It's more that the bill will get bogged down in legal fights over pre-existing human rights legislation, with certain penalties declared "unlawful" by the courts, and "incompatible" with our obligations under a number of different treaties.

Breaches of the ECHR and UNHCR will both be alleged, and we'll probably still be locked into expensive, constitutionally taxing legal proceedings by the time the next election rolls around - with no real change in the status quo.

The lords will most likely stall the legislation as is

Especially as it (obviously) did not feature in the government's Manifesto at the last election.

So there are downsides to not seeking a public mandate after replacing two(!) PMs since the last GE?? Who would have thought?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So there are downsides to not seeking a public mandate after replacing two(!) PMs since the last GE?? Who would have thought?

It wouldn't be an issue if they'd kept to the same legislative agenda throughout. However.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Just hope that the Tories won't stoop to such callous lows as their Australian ""inspiration"" ScoMo, and actually put this crap front and centre for press interviews.

[Torrain]

Just hope that the Tories won't stoop to such callous lows as their Australian ""inspiration"" ScoMo, and actually put this crap front and centre for press interviews.

I wouldn't get your hopes up - Sunak loves a poorly judged photo-op, so I'm sure we'll be in for something similar eventually. This is the chap who brought us:

"Filling up my car - but I borrowed a cheaper car so I seem more approachable."


"Pretending to be a waiter, and making awkward small-talk with vegan customers, who I served chicken."


"Michael Dukakis tribute act"
 

And this clip of him learning he'd made it into the runoff he'd go on to lose to Liz Truss:

[ingemann]

There is nothing meaningful to "explain", save that it is dog whistle nonsense.

Is it a dog whistle, when you do it this badly? I mean it’s named dog whistling because it’s coded so only the target audience can hear it, while here I think Sunak successful made a abominable policy (removing human trafficking protections) look even worse (legalizing slavery).

[Sestak]

Rishi Sunak is a deeply evil man.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

At what point will it be a non-extreme political viewpoint in the UK to admit that America has a better quality of life than Britain at the moment?

[CumbrianLefty]

Rishi Sunak is a deeply evil man.

He's not, but he is both incredibly lacking in imagination and morally weak.

[Person Man]

Rishi Sunak is a deeply evil man.

He's not, but he is both incredibly lacking in imagination and morally weak.

You mean he’s a cuck.

[CumbrianLefty]

Rishi Sunak is a deeply evil man.

He's not, but he is both incredibly lacking in imagination and morally weak.

You mean he’s a cuck.

Yeah, pretty much.

[Torrain]

For the record, the Commons will be holding the first major vote on the bill in question tomorrow. The Conservative chair of the Commons Women and Equalities Committee, Caroline Nokes, has announced she'll vote against the bill, and described her response to some of the provisions as "absolute horror":
https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1634979195427123200
And former Home Secretary Priti Patel (an immigration hardliner who cooked up the initial plan to deport migrants to Rwanda) has briefed that she's considering an intervention in the Commons, opposing aspects of the bill that remove Cameron-era bans on child detention and deportation.

Now - reports of Commons drama often fizzle out into nothing - and the footsoldiers may just fall in line, as per usual. But there's a chance that tomorrow will be something of a febrile day in Westminster.

For bonus points, Sunak will be out of the country, on a trip to California, so if the whips get into bother, he won't be in a place to lobby his backbenchers, or lend them his own vote.

Theresa May is also in CA, discussing protecting the victims of human trafficking with Nancy Pelosi - which seems like a bit of a dig.

[Person Man]

Rishi Sunak is a deeply evil man.

He's not, but he is both incredibly lacking in imagination and morally weak.

You mean he’s a cuck.

Yeah, pretty much.

This is pretty extreme for cuckholdery though. Who is intimidated into doing  stuff like this? this isn’t wanting to legislate away the last 20 years 50 years or even 100 years. This is about trying to forget the last 1000 years ever happened.

[CumbrianLefty]

I think he is genuinely terrified of Suella Braverman, seriously.

[Torrain]

Debate on the bill has been dispiriting so far:

• Braverman took a break in her speech to complain about how people were mean to her for her opinions, and suggested she was being discriminated against.
• A Tory backbencher implied that Scotland wasn't taking asylum seekers, and the House dissolved into a shouting match that the Deputy Speaker struggled to wind down.
• Theresa May got up and tried to attack Labour for the immigration backlog under Tony Blair *in 1998*.

For the record, the number of Tory MPs expected to rebel tonight is apparently around 10 - around a quarter of the number needed to seriously challenge the legislation.

Update 1: Simon Hoare intervenes, to say that he speaks for a group of Tory MPs who will vote to advance tonight, under the assurances that the bill will be amended before final passage.

Update 2: Theresa May gives a short speech, saying that the bill will not end illegal immigration, and pushes back against their approach on Modern Slavery, stating that over 90% of applications are found to be valid.

The Home Office knows this bill means that genuine victims of modern slavery will be denied support.

Also suggests that the law will do significant reputational damage to the UK. Her speech petered out at the very end, and it's unclear what her actual voting position is (although as a good party soldier, I imagine she's in the "progress but amend the bill" group).

[YL]

Update 1: Simon Hoare intervenes, to say that he speaks for a group of Tory MPs who will vote to advance tonight, under the assurances that the bill will be amended before final passage.

IIRC this is what potential rebels often do at second reading.