Courts would block Farage’s ‘mass deportation’ plan using common law, says former attorney general

21 comments

1. I have a feeling that a Reform government would just be Farage saying “hey, we tried to stop the boats but the courts stopped us sorry” and then proceed to do what they always wanted to do all along which is massive corporate tax cuts and a variety of benefits for his mates.

2. Of course they would. Just look at the States and how much Trump has had to trample over the judiciary to get his way with deporting en masse.

   People who think the solution is as simple as flying people home (where home is being irrelevant to their solution) are completely overlooking the logistical and procedural issues.

   You’d need to completely remove the right of the courts to use ECHR, probably have to remove the ability of the judiciary to block a deportation whilst judgment is pending. Somehow you’d have to overlook the issues around detention and process centres at a time where we can’t even build enough prisons.

   Mass deportations is red meat rhetoric but the reality will be awful.

3. Create a bill that removes all the reasoning behind their judgement, pass it, sorted.

   Judges thinking they can block the will of the public through strained interpretations of our laws would tread on dangerous ground, they could see the wholesale butchery of human rights laws in the UK because of their activism.

4. Risky strategy. He will then accuse the courts of being “against the will of the people”, strip them of their power to override Parliament, politicise judicial appointments, etc… that’ll give him greater rein to enact his policies in the long run.

   *Of course, this is only presumptive*, however, Reform have already targeted the so-called ‘lefty lawyers’.

   My own view: if people do in fact vote for deportations, there shouldn’t be some conspiracy enacted by a cabal of lawyers to suppress the will of the people (as long as people are removed sensibly and with respect for their dignity).

5. I feel there is little point in attempting to apply logic to a political argument that is purely there to be the panacea to the spectre of uncontrolled immigration.
   I am sure the right wing elite knows it wont work but it is the Reform equivalent of “panem et circenses” (bread & circuses) which as a metonymic phrase that instantly gives superficial appeasement and comfort to their followers and solidifies ongoing support to the ideology

6. I believe the UK should give Nigel Farage a chance to lead a government, as it would demonstrate that running a country requires far more than vague plans on immigration and foreign policy. As John Major wisely stated, “In the end, you have to govern by consent and by practicality, not by slogans.” Farage’s rhetoric, though influential in shaping public sentiment, particularly during Brexit, often lacks the depth and pragmatism needed to address complex challenges like economic stability, healthcare, education, and social cohesion.
   Immigration policy, one of his key focuses, involves not just border control but also managing labor markets, cultural integration, and international treaties. Similarly, his foreign policy stance would need to navigate intricate trade agreements and global alliances, areas where simplistic solutions fall short. Let’s expose the truth behind his rhetoric and whether his vague plans hold up under the demands of real governance.

7. Can the mainstream media please stop giving this gobshite a platform to spout utter bollocks.

8. Why does Mr Grieve not explain why the Conservative Party would be a better choice to implement the will of the people, can he not point to their record on the economy and migration? Perhaps people might pause to think how we got here, the gulf between what people were told they were voting for and what was delivered.

   Where is the democratic mandate for the past 5 year or 15 years of migration? Maybe people should be much more vocal and demanding stronger action from Labour to offer a mainstream political party delivering on what people want and believe they voted for.

9. This is not the US. We don’t have a constitution and parliament is sovereign, Farage can say the sky is purple and courts would block it until Farage decides to pass legislation explicitly saying the sky is purple and the courts woudl have to eat it

   Looking at the comments sometimes I feel I’m talking to Americans and not actual British people

10. A farage majority government could pass a bill stating the following:

    ”The Minister for Home Affairs may order the immediate deportation of any non-citizen without judicial review, appeal, or oversight”

11. Can people please stop taking this moron (Farage) seriously? He isn’t PM and he wouldn’t have a chance of being PM if people stopped obsessing over his every word. 

12. People in this thread will love the idea of sticking it to the courts until and as soon as the government does something stupid and they will say “where were the courts?”

    I know nobody will believe me but we’re really going down a very slippery slope with this kind of thing. Johnson started it.

13. That plane crash really was a sliding doors moment for the whole of the UK wasn’t it?

    I sometimes wonder how they’re getting on in that timeline.

14. Typical shit arse UK. The only party that is actually willing to do what we all want and all the other dick turds can do is argue against it and find ways to prevent it. We need someone with balls who will say 🖕 to the establishment.

15. Let me preface this by saying: I think if (or when) Reform gets to be in power, this will result in british people quality of life sliding down even further than it already is, imagine Thatcher but stupider.

    With that being said, I’m not sure this is a good way of approaching this, what they are basically saying is, judiciary is above democracy and regardless of what public votes for, they will do all in their power to prevent that. Surely all that means is, removing judiciary powers is the only answer, and will have far more reaching consequences than just topic of migration.

    At the end of the day all public bodies should work in the interest of the public, this dude admitted, that they currently don’t.

16. Which is why any changes to the immigration and asylum system have to be done using primary legislation – the courts have shown that they will do everything they can to block or nullify any changes that make the system stricter, so the courts simply need to be overridden with legislation.

17. Well then change the laws? Or were these set down in stone by God himself?

18. We’re a “parliamentary dictatorship” and the courts attempting to say a law passed by parliament isn’t allowed by any means other than it contradicting a treaty or a constitutional law would be a violation of our constitutional norms and a judicial coup. They can only overrule parliamentary law on the basis of international treaty that parliament is signatory to, or constitutional law, and only if the act in question doesn’t explicitly declare itself to supersede those things. Moreover, common law is *always* superseded by legislation.

    This man is talking out of his arse.

    /u/LemonImportant7040 is exactly right.

    If the courts did this, it would be a constitutional crisis of the likes we haven’t seen since the civil war, and frankly it would be as consequential as the civil war if Farage backed down over it rather than did what is the clearly constitutionally mandated course of action, convening a Grand Tribunal of parliament to place the judges on trial by the MPs for treason.

19. Sure in this scenario they might very well be able to block his plans.

    What this would result in is the public becoming even more angry with nothing being able to get done, this is of course assuming he is elected by large percent of the electorate. They would just end up feeling like the courts etc are against them on topic they want fixed.

20. The judiciary is already far too powerful and unaccountable, this would be a good way of forcing a showdown.

    If a democratically elected government wanted to deport some people (which is not a historically abnormal thing *at all*), let them override it and see what happened.

    It was insane that they even tried this with Brexit. I suppose I was ambivalent towards it at the time but in hindsight (even though I assume I’d still vote remain) it was an intensely elitist and foolish thing to basically try to override the referendum be it via the courts, parliament, or a second referendum.

    This is all academic anyway, any scheme actually enforced would probably just involve paying people to leave rather than just shoving them on a plane. There are too many people under the table to actually implement anything else.

21. The second one judge uses some loop hole bullshit to rule a single deportee can stay. A reform government enacts emergency legislation to close the loophole for all future cases. You can’t fight against the government when they have an ironclad mandate and a massive majority to enact something like this. It’s a stacked deck. We aren’t like America, it’s not “illegal” for the government to make any law or to get rid of any law. There is no underlying Constitution that is above the sovereignty of the Government.

Comments are closed.