Asylum seekers who arrived illegally in the UKthey did not fly to Rwanda in the UK. The European Court of Human Rights, which has nothing to do with the European Union but depends on the Council of Europe, prevented from traveling from its seat in Strasbourg and stunned the British government.

Migrants will not be able to travel to Kigali until the High Court has ruled the humanitarian legality of that trip in July, to prosecute asylum seekers, 17,000 kilometers from the place where they took refuge. They have the right to refuse them and to leave them in legal limbo without being able to return to their country of origin.

Britain left the EU but not the Human Rights Convention after Brexit. It is one of the 48 European Councils of State that have ratified the Convention.

To discourage the illegal arrival of migrants in the kingdom, London announced in April an agreement with Rwanda to welcome these migrants and asylum seekers in exchange for $ 157 million. A first plane with undocumented immigrants was supposed to leave on Tuesday night, but was stopped by the European court.

Withdrawal from the court and from the convention

British Conservative MPs have called on Britain to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights after it was blocked on Tuesday the inaugural expulsion flight in Rwanda.

A decision by the Strasbourg court to issue injunctions against the deportation of immigrants, including an Iraqi, an Iranian, a Vietnamese and an Albanian, halted the flight, only 30 minutes before the scheduled departure time.

The privately chartered plane, a Spanish Boeing 767, was due to leave the Boscombe Down Army Base in Wiltshire at 10:30 pm on Tuesday. At least four of the immigrants were taken to the airport on the same day. They were then taken back to the place of detention after 10:30 pm.

an angry minister

Furious, Priti Patel, the British Minister of the Interior, the intervention of the Strasbourg court reported. He said he found it “very surprising” to have contradicted UK court rulings in recent days.

She insisted that “she would not be deterred from doing the right thing”. She said the officials were working for book another flight to Rwanda.

“Many of those removed from this flight will be inserted in the next“, challenge. Each flight will have a cost nearly half a million pounds £ 12,000 for waiting and £ 12,000 for each asylum seeker in Rwanda, which Britain will pay.

On Tuesday, Boris Johnson hinted that the UK it would abandon the European Convention on Human Rightswhich is the basis of the judge’s decisions.

Asked if the time had come for the UK to withdraw from the convention, following the government’s difficulty in implementing its policy in Rwanda, Johnson said: “The legal world is very good at finding ways to try to prevent the government to uphold what we deem reasonable law. “

“Will some laws need to be changed to help us move forward? Most likely it is and all of these options are under constant review, ”she explained.

leave the court

Conservatives, including government advisers, reacted with anger before the court decision. In a WhatsApp group for parliamentarians, Tom Hunt, a parliamentarian from Ipswich and chairman of the political committee for internal affairs of the backbenchers, said: “It is time to leave the European Convention on Human Rights”.

James Sunderland, Bracknell MP and assistant ministerial to George Eustice, secretary for the environment, said: “Did we expect less? is outrageous that the UK is still bound by the ECHR as a sovereign nation. “

Danny Kruger, Johnson’s former political secretary and now Michael Gove’s private parliamentary secretary, told colleagues: “It was the Strasbourg court, not a UK court or HMG. Strasbourg’s definition of the right to family life is now absurdly expanded to include this sort of thing. “

“Ultimately, we must abandon the European Court of Human Rights or renegotiate the original limited concept of human rights, drafted by conservative British lawyers in the 1950s, to give post-Nazi Europe the same rights and freedoms that the Kingdom enjoys. United for centuries, “he said.

The reaction of the deputies

Brendan Clarke-Smith, an MP from Bassetlaw and an assistant to the cabinet office, said: “This is indeed a war now.”

Alex Stafford, Rother Valley MP and assistant to the Ministry of Defense, added: “This is a disaster!”

Jonathan Gullis, an MP from Stoke-on-Trent North and private parliamentary secretary to Brandon Lewis, Northern Ireland’s secretary, told his constituents on Facebook: “It is clear that the European Court of Human Rights has prevented flying to leave, after these efforts in the UK courts were exhausted. The ECHR has no place in the UK judicial system. The government must get rid of it completely! “

But Wednesday morning Thérèse Coffey, Secretary for Work and Pensions, downplayed the idea that the UK could leave the court, which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights, a treaty in which Britain has played a role. key in its creation in 1950. The convention was enshrined in the UK by the Human Rights Act 1998.

Guy Opperman, the Pensions Minister, sent a similar message: “No, I don’t think that’s our policy, nor is it something I would support.”

“The ECtHR has basically stated that there should be more time to look into the claims involved and that the UK courts should do so … I still believe that the UK courts have primacy,” he said.

Some of the conservatives admitted in 2019 expressed their frustration with the government rather than the Strasbourg judges.

Paul Holmes, the Eastleigh MP, wrote on WhatsApp: “I fear that, after all the hype, we must now face anger and accusations of incompetence from the conservative base, unless we speak strongly and are proactive.”

Marco Longhi, MP from Dudley North, said: “It has always been a risk with the ECHR in place. Now we look incompetent. “

Yvette Cooper, the shadow secretary of Labor, said: “It makes no sense that the government blames anyone more than himself. They pursued a policy that they knew how to work. “

Minister Priti Patel will present a report on the resolution of the European Court of Human Rights to the House of Commons.

Considered to be Prince Charles and the Anglican Church, led by the Archbishop of Canterbury and 23 bishops the “appalling” and “inhuman” measure..

The human rights court in Strasbourg heard them at the last minute eftook flight. The appeal won by an Iraqi sand applied to all 7 passengers who were on the flight.

Another 400 asylum seekers crossed with their small boats between Tuesday and Wednesday from France to Great Britain.

Paris, correspondent

ap