Brexit.

[WolfEyes]

Not once have I said Disney doesn't pick and choose who they go after. What I am saying is Disney aren't the ones responsible for this particular removal. That is all. I know Disney can be relentless when it comes to trademarks and copyrights. I've known it for decades. I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday ya know.

Unless this Robert Jenrick character works for Disney on the side, there's nothing to debate about what I said. In this case, Disney didn't do it. Prove me wrong.

 

[Free]

I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday ya know.

Did it happen last Wednesday, then?

 

[WolfEyes]

Did it happen last Wednesday, then?

Now that you mention it, I think I was born on a Wednesday in 1959.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Unless this Robert Jenrick character works for Disney on the side, there's nothing to debate about what I said

I have heard it described as a Micky Mouse government.

 

[WolfEyes]

I have heard it described as a Micky Mouse government.

Please tell me there isn't a Donald in there somewhere.

 

[Free]

Please tell me there isn't a Donald in there somewhere.

Maybe???

 

[WolfEyes]

Maybe???

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Suella Braverman is genuinely horrible -- she's our version of Stephen Miller.

Liz Truss appointed her as Home Secretary, then she had to resign because she'd leaked confidential documents, and then she got her job back a week later when, after Truss' brief and shambolic administration collapsed, she demanded it as her price for supporting Rishi Sunak.

She's absolutely hopeless at her job, though, and completely repellent to most voters (including Conservative-leaning ones) and Conservative MPs, so it's thougt she's likely to be remove in the impending cabinet reshuffle.

In the meantime, she's capable only of performatively nastiness, in an attempt to persuade Conservative supporters that she's doing something about illegal immigration.

 

[WolfEyes]

Do any of these idiots have children of their own? They must not.

 

[Khamon]

Do any of these idiots have children of their own? They must not.

Some do and, in my experience, they're no safer than any other child in the state.

 

[CronoCloud Creeggan]

Suella Braverman is genuinely horrible -- she's our version of Stephen Miller.

She's not kidding, I started reading about her and my head exploded out of sheer WTF! She's anti-immigration, because she thinks immigrants will change the national character of Britain, but is the child of immigrant parents. She says nice things about and is an apologist for British Colonialism in Africa and India. And of course, she's opposed to "radical gender ideology", which means trans people existing.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

She's not kidding, I started reading about her and my head exploded out of sheer WTF! She's anti-immigration, because she thinks immigrants will change the national character of Britain, but is the child of immigrant parents. She says nice things about and is an apologist for British Colonialism in Africa and India. And of course, she's opposed to "radical gender ideology", which means trans people existing.

Sunak and Braverman's trans jokes are 'unacceptable' says Parliament's equalities chief

Caroline Nokes, Tory chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, warns against 'seeking to make a group of people the butt of jokes'

inews.co.uk

And why Tories on both the left and (far) right of the party dislike her, for different reasons

'There is no confidence in Suella': Tory MPs' fury as Braverman's stop the boats plan implodes

Offshore island processing centres and Channel migrant pushbacks back on the agenda, as Tories hunt for a 'plan B'

inews.co.uk

 

[Bartholomew Gallacher]

Is it? The Lords (including right wing Conservative peers, like Michael Howard, a former leader of the Conservative Party) are very unwilling to break international law, as the government discovered over the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Everyone here (including, I would imagine, HMG) is expecting the Lords to throw out the bill, or at least its most objectionable aspects, meaning it can't be re-introduced for a year. That would effectively kill it, since it would run into the General Election.

Well, the bill has passed the House of Lords, most of the HoL proposed changes have been dismantled by the government, it also passed the HoC finally and will now go for Royal Assent. So Rishi Sunak got what he wanted with very few new exceptions: pulling of people off their boats, and flying them back to Rwanda.

The UN human rights chief is already worried about the UK dismantling asylum-related obligations, and the opponents of the law want to bring it now to the Supreme Court.

UK government's contested illegal immigration plan to become law

The British government defeated attempts by parliament's upper house to make changes to the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

www.reuters.com

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Well, the bill has passed the House of Lords, most of the HoL proposed changes have been dismantled by the government, it also passed the HoC finally and will now go for Royal Assent. So Rishi Sunak got what he wanted with very few new exceptions: pulling of people off their boats, and flying them back to Rwanda.

The UN human rights chief is already worried about the UK dismantling asylum-related obligations, and the opponents of the law want to bring it now to the Supreme Court.

UK government's contested illegal immigration plan to become law

The British government defeated attempts by parliament's upper house to make changes to the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.

www.reuters.com

I'm not sure what concessions the government made during the final negotiations over the amended bill (they made a lot) but certainly anything with ECHR implications will be litigated up to the Supreme Court.

Their existing plan -- sending asylum seekers to Rwanda -- has been tied up in the courts since this time last year and that isn't expected to be resolved until the end of this year, so I don't see how there's now time for this law to come into effect before the next election.

 

[Essence Lumin]

I'm not sure what concessions the government made during the final negotiations over the amended bill (they made a lot) but certainly anything with ECHR implications will be litigated up to the Supreme Court.

Their existing plan -- sending asylum seekers to Rwanda -- has been tied up in the courts since this time last year and that isn't expected to be resolved until the end of this year, so I don't see how there's now time for this law to come into effect before the next election.

Why would Rwanda accept these people? As I read it, most are not from there.

 

[Innula Zenovka]

Why would Rwanda accept these people? As I read it, most are not from there.

Basically because the UK is paying them a lot of money in return for taking them:

UK estimates cost of deporting each asylum seeker to Rwanda will be 169,000 pounds

Britain's plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda will cost 169,000 pounds ($215,035) per person, according to the first detailed government assessment of a high-stakes promise to tackle record numbers of people arriving in small boats.

www.reuters.com

.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda_asylum_plan

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Innula Zenovka]

 

[Sid]

Sure, the EU wanted the UK to leave and close their borders.
And then they don't require these checks for 'some' Britons, no..... Bloody Brussels insists that it is for everyone of them.

 

[Sid]

Who could have guessed when at the polling station for the Brexit referendum?
How is it possible that the EU sticks to the negotiated treaties?
It is all so surprisingly unfair.... Why didn't the EU stop the UK from doing this?