‘If we lose in the Supreme Court, an outcome that I have consistently argued we must be prepared for, you will have wasted a year and an Act of Parliament, only to arrive back at square one’.
These were the words of Suella Braverman, the former Home Secretary, in a scathing letter to the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, in which she addressed his decision to sack her from the position of Home Secretary on 13th November 2023. This is a process which Mrs Braverman has become accustomed to, after losing the post twice in the space of just over a year.
The letter came two days prior to the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling against the government’s proposed Rwanda Scheme. The controversial scheme was a product of Boris Johnson’s premiership and proposed that ‘illegal’ migrants could be deported and detained in Rwanda (acting as a safe third country) to curb the unmanageable backlog of migration applications caused by thirteen years of incompetent government policy and increasing levels of migration to the UK. The scheme was part of the ‘Illegal Migration Bill’ formulated by Priti Patel DBE, who served as Home Secretary under Boris Johnson, and was announced by Johnson on 14th April 2022. The plan received heavy scrutiny from the outset, with the Labour Party deeming the scheme ‘unworkable, unethical, and extortionate policy that would cost the UK taxpayer billions of pounds’.
Despite these protests, the ‘Illegal Migration Bill’ was pushed through the Commons with a majority of seventeen, with the first plane set to take off on 14th June 2022. However, the government’s plans were brought to a halt following the intervention of the ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights), an international convention which serves to protect human rights. The UK has held membership to the convention since its establishment in 1953, something which many in the Conservative party have called to terminate following the convention’s intervention.
In response to the intervention, the government attempted to appeal the ECHR’s actions, and a subsequent verdict ruling against the UK Government’s decision, through the UK Supreme Court. The verdict was revealed on 15th November, with the Supreme Court unanimously ruling against the legalities of the proposed Rwanda Scheme.
Whilst Mrs Braverman can be sure to find a more stable career as a psychic rather than a politician, the same cannot be said for Rishi Sunak, who many have speculated depended on the scheme for a victory at the next general election. The most recent YouGov poll (24th November 2023) indicates that voting intentions place the Conservatives with 25% of the electorate, in comparison to Labour with 44%. This prospect presents an unstable future for Sunak’s premiership, as his futile attempts to push the Rwanda Scheme through indicates a desperate leader at best, and a party on the brink of self-implosion at worst.
Many on the right of the Conservative Party have accused Sunak of appealing to the centre factions and have called for the UK to exit the ECHR. This poses a challenge to Sunak, who could face a vote of no confidence instigated from the right of his party if he fails to act on their requests. However, not only do these requests lack validity, as the ECHR provides the UK with invaluable influence and credibility in international politics (something which has been damaged by the impact of Brexit), but these requests also lack value.
If Sunak were to cave into these requests from the right of his party, he would still be bound to other international treaties (UN Refugee Convention) and domestic law (Human Rights Act) which would inhibit the Rwanda Plan from taking place.
Although uncertainty remains, it is clear that Sunak’s decision to leave the ECHR would be motivated by his own wish to appease the right of his party as opposed to electoral success, as a poll commissioned by The Sun found that only 27% of British voters would choose to leave the ECHR. However, if Sunak does decide on the former, he will be journeying down a treacherous path with adverse implications. Thankfully for Sunak, he has only to look to his newly appointed Foreign Secretary to see the product of such a decision.