https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-67418363

<quotes>

Sunak tells the Commons he will "finalise" a new treaty with Rwanda in light of the Supreme Court's judgement.

He says if it becomes clear that "our domestic legal frameworks or international conventions" are frustrating our plans then "I am prepared to change our laws and revisit those international relationships".

He adds: "The British people expect us to do whatever it takes to stop the boats and that is precisely what this government will deliver.

</quotes>

No treaty will overcome the fundamental problem that Rwanda cannot be considered a safe country for those seeking asylum.

And he is lying, and knows he is lying, when he claims Brits expect him to do "whatever it takes".

There are clear limits on what Brits will accept and what British Law allows.

It's why there was such a backlash to Patel's plans to drown migrant children in the channel.

I would be very surprised if parliament or anyone will accept his proposal to change British Law to allow evil to be done. It's quite sickening that he can even propose it.

This is the Nasty Party proving how nasty it is. No change there.

On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:27:32 +0000
The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:

> I would be very surprised if parliament or anyone will accept his
> proposal to change British Law to allow evil to be done. It's quite
> sickening that he can even propose it.

"There is a legal rule that refugees must not be returned to their countries of origin, either directly or indirectly, if their life or freedom would be threatened in that country."

And that's the crux. Sunak and his supporters in the nasty party believe they should be allowed to send migrants, refugees and asylum seekers to their deaths.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 13:27:32 +0000
> The Happy Hippy <the.happy.hippy.nntp@ntlworld.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I would be very surprised if parliament or anyone will accept his
>> proposal to change British Law to allow evil to be done. It's quite
>> sickening that he can even propose it.
>
> "There is a legal rule that refugees must not be returned to their countries of origin, either directly or indirectly, if their life or freedom would be threatened in that country."

Sounds like thats a pretty good way to stay in the UK forever, soaking
up benefits and spawning more useless mouths to feed, by simply claiming
that their life or freedom would be threatened if they were sent back -
And thats probably why they all have been using that very escape clause
for years against you gullible bleeding heart idiots.

--
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.