Despite the flight stop: London is sticking to the deportation plan

Created: 06/14/2022Updated: 06/15/2022 02:15 am

This Boeing 767 is said to be the machine that should bring asylum seekers from Great Britain to Rwanda.

© Andrew Matthews/PA Wire/dpa

For people who have entered the UK illegally, in the future it will often be called Rwanda, the end of the line.

But a European court of all things is thwarting the plans of the London government for the time being.

LONDON - Despite a sensational defeat in court, the British government wants to stick to its controversial plan to fly asylum seekers of different nationalities to Rwanda.

"We will not be deterred from doing the right thing and protecting our nation's borders," said Home Secretary Priti Patel after the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg initially thwarted her government's plans with a rare intervention.

They are already working on preparing for the next flight, added Patel.

"I am disappointed that last-minute lawsuits and litigation prevented today's flight from taking off," said the politician.

It is very surprising that the European Court of Human Rights has intervened after British courts had previously decided otherwise.

deterrent measure

The first planned deportation flight to Rwanda was stopped by a court shortly before departure.

With the flight, London wanted to herald its controversial Rwanda pact, with which the conservative government wants to deter other people seeking protection from entering the United Kingdom.

The agreement provides that those seeking protection who have illegally entered Great Britain, regardless of their nationality or origin, are brought to the East African country and given the opportunity to apply for asylum there in return for payments from the British government.

Even if they are recognized as refugees there, there should never be a return to Great Britain.

The United Nations and many other organizations see this as a breach of international law and a dangerous precedent.

According to media reports, even the heir to the throne, Prince Charles, who is committed to political neutrality, is said to have expressed “appalled” about the plan.

Successful individual lawsuits

British courts basically gave the flight the green light, but many individual lawsuits were successful, which is why the number of passengers scheduled for Tuesday evening was falling in the days before.

In the hours before the scheduled departure, the extraordinary intervention of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg then ensured that the number of people leaving the country finally fell to zero and the flight was canceled completely.

also read

"The unthinkable has happened": Lavrov rages after airspace blocking for Serbia trip

Putin's "Hunger Plan" in Three Acts: Historian Declares Next "Stage of War" and Predicts Unrest

The decision of the Strasbourg court set off a chain reaction, so to speak: those who remained were able to refer to the decision and initially successfully prevent their own departure.

In just over an hour, the plan for the first Rwanda flight collapsed "like a house of cards," commented BBC correspondent Dominic Casciani after the decision.

Rare intervention

In a so-called interim measure, Strasbourg had asked the British authorities to take an Iraqi asylum seeker, who was originally supposed to be on board, out of the country at the earliest three weeks after a final decision in his ongoing proceedings in Great Britain.

According to the court, interim measures are binding and are only imposed infrequently and when there is an imminent risk of irreparable damage.

The European Court of Human Rights is part of the Council of Europe.

The bodies that are independent of the European Union work together to protect human rights in the 46 member states.

So far, the Strasbourg court has also had the last word in Great Britain on such issues.

The latest decision is likely to fuel debate as to whether this should remain the case.

Asked about this, Prime Minister Boris Johnson indicated in an interview that changes could not be ruled out.

dpa