Deportation of migrants to Rwanda: "A standoff begins between London and the ECHR"

Jeremy Stubbs is President of the Association of British Curators in Paris and Deputy Managing Editor of the journal

Causeur

To discover

• Find all the results of the legislative elections

FIGAROVOX.

- By urgently canceling the deportation of an Iraqi on Tuesday June 12, the European Court of Human Rights prevented the plane chartered to move asylum seekers who had entered British soil to Rwanda from taking off.

What remedies led to this decision?

Jeremy Stubbs.

-

These are case-by-case decisions.

The European Court of Human Rights did not decide that the operation to transfer the asylum seekers was illegal, but that, in the case of this Iraqi, the merits of the deportation were not justified.

With other departing refugees appealing, the flight itself was eventually cancelled.

The ECHR therefore did not question the right to deport migrants, but expressed the view that the English High Court should examine the principle of this policy from a legal point of view, before deciding whether this Iraqi (and therefore also the other passengers) could be transferred to Rwanda.

Currently, the British government is planning another flight to Rwanda.

Could this decision push the United Kingdom to review its relations with the European Court of Human Rights?

What have been the debates on this question for a few years in England?

Some politicians in the United Kingdom, especially Conservatives, have long criticized the law, the "

", enacted under Tony Blair.

This text enshrines the European Convention on Human Rights directly in British law.

The current Conservative government proposed at the start of its mandate to partially undo this

and replace it with a British bill of rights - "

", not to be confused with the

existing "

" which dates from 1689.

This case has galvanized the British government, which will certainly try to distance itself from the European Court of Human Rights.

Jeremy Stubbs

Regarding this first flight to Rwanda, even the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom gave the green light to the government.

Its mission is to verify that a ministerial decision is not contrary to the law, and at the same time to protect the right of ministers, who are elected, to act according to the law.

It is clear that the government will not be able to introduce a new bill of rights until the next flight, which is supposed to leave in a few days, or before the High Court rules on the policy itself.

But this case has galvanized the government, which will certainly try to distance itself from the ECHR.

He is not talking about severing ties completely and leaving the Council of Europe, because the intention is not to weaken this institution in its general fight for rights.

This is to lessen its influence on the British courts.

Despite the decisions of the ECHR, Boris Johnson said he would go through with it.

Weakened since his submission to a vote of no confidence, can the Prime Minister affirm his legitimacy by adopting a firm position?

'Rwandan politics' was already controversial apart from the question of Boris Johnson's legitimacy.

But if the latter manages to make his policy work, he will gain legitimacy in the eyes of some of his colleagues and conservative voters.

Generally speaking, the government has to go all the way, otherwise it will look weak.

It's a real arm wrestling game.

For now, the government can exploit this setback, saying, "Look at these foreign judges who oppose our policy."

But if this situation continues, he will appear weak, which would be the worst for him at the moment.

In this sense, the second flight, if it takes off, would be a real symbol.

What are the repercussions of this affair in English public opinion?

The most recent poll shows that public opinion is quite divided, but with a slight majority in favor of the government's policy on this issue.

If we look only at conservative voters, they are up to 73% to approve it.

So, by trying to implement his policy despite court rulings, Boris Johnson is pleasing his base.

It is a policy that is very popular with working-class conservative voters.

It is the most popular classes that have the most concerns about uncontrolled immigration.

For those who oppose any restrictions on immigration, the failure of this policy would be a triumph.

Jeremy Stubbs

A researcher from the University of London, Eric Kaufmann, has conducted quite extensive studies in the United Kingdom on public attitudes towards immigration.

He showed that, on the one hand, public opinion is quite favorable towards genuine refugees who flee from war zones and who are in distress, but on the other does not appreciate individuals who arrive unexpectedly. and illegally in the territory.

So we have these two opposite reactions.

Government policy is to ensure that applications can be processed in Rwanda, which is considered a relatively safe place.

The idea was born in Denmark which had already started talks with the Rwandans, before the British, without going all the way.

The United Kingdom had to make an initial payment to Rwanda of 120 million pounds.

But you should know that, every day, the British government pays 4.7 million pounds for the hotel bills of illegal immigrants housed in the United Kingdom.

This policy is quite a symbol.

For those who oppose any restrictions on immigration, the failure of this policy would be a triumph.

We are in the middle of a complicated affair where there are contradictory attitudes within the public which nevertheless favors the refusal of migrants presenting themselves clandestinely.

There is therefore an ideological battle between the government which wants to listen to the majority of the British and the supporters of a world without borders.