Rishi Sunak is prepared to take Britain out of the European convention on human rights (ECHR) after being warned that 65,000 illegal migrants are expected to come to the country this year.
Official estimates suggest there will be almost a 50 per cent increase in illegal migration on last year, when 45,000 claimed asylum, many of them after crossing the Channel in small boats.
Sunak and Suella Braverman, the home secretary, are finalising plans for the most draconian immigration legislation seen in this country. Officials say the plans, to be unveiled within weeks, will take Britain to the “boundaries” of international law.
But senior figures say if judges at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg rule that the new plans are unlawful, the prime minister is open to withdrawing from the convention.
“The PM has been clear he wants to introduce legislation that meets our international obligations,” a source familiar with Sunak’s thinking said. “This bill will go as far as possible within international law. We are pushing the boundaries of what is legally possible, while staying within the ECHR. And we are confident that when it is tested in the courts, we will win.
“But if this legislation gets onto the statute book and is found to be lawful by our domestic courts, but it is still being held up in Strasbourg, then we know the problem is not our legislation or our courts.
“If that’s the case, then of course he will be willing to reconsider whether being part of the ECHR is in the UK’s long-term interests.”
Senior figures say the prime minister is prepared to deploy the nuclear option before the general election if the European court strikes down his plans. But that would put the government on a collision course with MPs and particularly the House of Lords, and it is highly unlikely it would happen before the election due in 2024.
The Tories would then put withdrawal from the ECHR at the heart of their manifesto, drawing a sharp dividing line between the Conservatives and Labour. The plan is proof, allies say, that Sunak shares the hardline instincts of the Tory right on immigration.
The political imperative to stop the boats is heightened by the estimate of 65,000 illegal arrivals this year. Widespread polling and Tory focus groups show that immigration is in the top three issues for voters, with the economy and the NHS. Political aides believe concerns about illegal immigration are strong even in parts of the country little affected by it. They think it has become a test of competence.
The 65,000 figure comes from an official computer model that tracks migration flows around the world. Last year, when 45,000 illegal migrants came to the UK, the model was accurate to within 600 people.
The reason for the increase is that large numbers of people are seeking to move from central Asia, particularly Afghanistan, through Turkey and into Europe.
It was also revealed last week that the number of illegal migrants coming from India on small boats hit 250 in January alone, more than the 233 in the first nine months of last year. If that continues, numbers could hit 70,000 or 80,000 this year, the government’s worst-case scenario.
The good news for Sunak is that none of this modelling includes the deterrent effects of the government’s latest crackdown on illegal immigration or the likely deterrent effect of the new bill becoming law.
The number of people coming from Albania weekly has already fallen to “single figures” after the government struck a deal to return illegal migrants there. Last year
32 per cent of illegal migrants came from Albania, a Nato ally that hopes to join the EU, meaning it is safe to send people back there.
Sunak’s new bill will make it illegal to claim asylum in Britain for those who come here illegally. It will outline plans to deport them within “days or weeks” rather than “months or years” to their country of origin or to Rwanda, with which Britain has signed a deal.
A No 10 source said: “For the first time, if you come here illegally, you can expect to be detained and removed from the UK. It’s as simple as that. You won’t be able to claim asylum in the UK — which 90 per cent of small-boats arrivals did last year — and you won’t be able to abuse our world-leading modern slavery protections either.
“Instead, your claim will be swiftly processed and you will be removed to a safe country, whether that’s the country you came from if it is safe, like Albania, or a safe country we have an agreement with, like Rwanda.”
The legislation will also rewrite some of Britain’s modern slavery rules, which are used by eight out of ten asylum seekers coming to the UK. There will also be provision to set up new detention centres for arrivals, some of them on old Ministry of Defence land.
The government has already won a High Court ruling that the Rwanda programme is legal. Campaigners will fight in the Court of Appeal in April to have the judgment overturned. It could then be referred to the Supreme Court, but ministers are hopeful that appeal judges will rule that there are no legal grounds for that.
Sunak expects the European court to rule on the Rwanda plan by the end of this year, and ministers believe Strasbourg will be wary of overturning a ruling by a British court. The new bill will, he hopes, be passed this year with a Strasbourg hearing likely early next year. Isaac Levido, the Tory election chief, has told the prime minister he must show progress on illegal immigration before the general election, expected in May or June 2024.
Winning the Rwanda case is essential for the government or it will not be able to deport asylum seekers who come from non-friendly countries, since they cannot be sent home. Once the Rwanda scheme has full legal approval, ministers will seek to sign deals with other safe countries.
The new legislation is taking time because Sunak wants it to be legally watertight. A previous bill, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, has achieved little.
A Downing Street source said: “We know how critical it is to have a bill that not only gets through parliament but that can be upheld in the courts. As we have seen with Rwanda, anything we do in this space will be challenged — and so it needs to be legally watertight.”
The Supreme Court, now presided over by Lord Reed, is believed to be more likely to take the government’s side than it was under Baroness Hale, who was president when the court ruled Boris Johnson’s prorogation of parliament unlawful in 2019.
But the real test will be whether the European Court of Human Rights seeks a confrontation. The government’s position is effectively an ultimatum to the Strasbourg court not to put Britain in a position where it has little choice but to leave the convention. Ministers believe it is possible that the Strasbourg court could refuse to hear such a case, though that may be wishful thinking.
“The PM is as frustrated as the public that the number of people arriving here illegally in small boats has risen fourfold in the last two years,” a senior figure said.
“He wants to go as far as legally possible to fix the issue — and he is not afraid to push the limits of the refugee convention or ECHR to prevent our country from being exploited by organised crime gangs and those that would skip the queue.
“If people crossing the Channel know that when they arrive in the UK they will be put in detention, their claims will be processed in a matter of days or at most weeks, and then they will be flown to a safe country like Rwanda, they will stop coming.”
A small town’s worth each year. Totally sustainable lol
… to be replaced with something far, far worse.
I’m embarrassed and saddened to see this happening to my country.
It’s getting turkeys to vote for Christmas. They’ll strip the rights under the pretence of the boats, but their voters will be shocked as soon as they use the same powers on them. This is going to end up in proper leopards eating face territory.
Give the way this gov has treated its citizens, I’d have thought they already have
Labour should just out and say that anything the Tories do between now and the election – with respect to human rights being removed – will be undone by the incoming labour government.
Imagine the level of secret corrupt dealings going on behind closed doors right now… the tories have been corrupt for the duration of their rule. With it increasing dramatically in recently years, so i can only imagine how rife it is now that they know they wont be reelected.
Headlines like this are great distractions for the press
And the 24/7 fire hose of shit shows no sign of abating.
Mind that time we told leave voters they’d do this? Good times, good times.
And still we Brits just sit here taking to social media venting anger here venting anger at NHS workers venting anger and frustration at civil servants when in actual fact at this point we should be on the streets overthrowing the government and retaking control of OUR country. Still when it’s all too late we’ll all start saying why didn’t we do anything. Stable door horse bolted situation.
It’s quite fucking mind blowing that there’s a Western democracy (?) in 2023 that seriously ~~contemplates leaving~~ will leave the convention of **human rights**.
You’d think we’ve gone far enough as a society that certain principles and rights are untouchable, your **human rights** being one of them.
Anyone thinking that something “better” will follow is naïve, “better” things will follow just as much as the £350M/week for the NHS did post-Brexit, or the fantastic international trade deals did follow.
I’ve been living here for 16 years as an EU Citizen, shit like this is _exactly_ why I never bothered with the citizenship and I’m glad I never did – who, in their sane mind, would out of their own will want to be a subject of a country that does not want to respect human rights and uses desperate, illegal immigrants as a straw man and distraction tactic to strip the rights off from their own citizens?
Seriously, to hell with this, anyone reasonable won’t want to move to the UK because it will be far too risky now.
Hasn’t all kinds of shit like rape or torture (murder?) been made legal **for secret services** a few years back, too?
I vaguely recall they got a whole ton activity legalised for themselves, things that wouldn’t normally be legal, if only found to be in the country’s interest or something. Can’t find the links though, but 100% something was going on so if anyone could drop a link to help resurface that one, it would be awesome.
The word ‘illegal’ doing a lot of heavy lifting in that article. To be clear, migrating is not an illegal activity. Shipman is – gasps in disbelief – factually incorrect.
I remember seeing people say this was one of the key purposes of Brexit, to diminish human and workers rights and basically turn us into a country of sweatshops and exploited labour for vulture capitalists.
I also remember them being called stupid and laughed at for believing that but here we are.
The Good Friday Agreement is intertwined with our membership of the ECHR. We try and mess with the GFA and just see what happens – Biden will be on the phone to Sunak in no time and minds will be changed.
This is a direct attack on our human rights the government have surrendered their right to govern now let’s show them what we do to fascists
I’m German so please apologize my commenting, but I have a question: Whenever I read something absurd Cruella Braverman either initiated or fully supports it. It’s like she wakes up and decides to win the worst-possible-human-trophy for the day. Is it just me and my limited knowledge … or is she really that vile?
People in here don’t want to admit it, but half of this is your fault. If Labour had compromised on things like immigration we would never have left the EU & Labour would have stood a chance of getting in. But you were too arrogant & ignorant. 64
Bonkers. Especially when you consider the Convention was actually written in 1948 by BRITISH lawyers
Ffs is there ever going to be a party which cares about our human rights and doesn’t fuck the economy at the same time?
Edit: could this be scare mongering to stop the illegal immigration. I bloody well hope so.
Leaving the treaty would be a disaster for the UK even if you don’t care about the human rights of non-citizens and don’t mind stripping legal protections from every UK citizen. Both the Withdrawal Agreement and the large parts of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU are predicated on the UK upholding the ECHR. For example: law enforcement, immigration and legal cooperation parts of the TCA will be suspended because various member states’ constitutions do not allow them to cooperate with countries not signed up to the ECHR or similar treaties. Similarly, because the ECHR is integrated in EU member state privacy law, data protection regulations would start cutting out UK companies (which would hobble any UK business that uses personal information of EU clients). It would put the UK on the same footing as Russia or Belarus where these laws concerned.
Additionally, the Good Friday Agreement and the NI political settlement also obliges the UK to uphold the convention, mandating its incorporation into NI law. The UK would therefore either break the Good Friday Agreement or operate under two separate legal regimes where human rights were concerned.
> But the real test will be whether the European Court of Human Rights seeks a confrontation. The government’s position is effectively an ultimatum to the Strasbourg court not to put Britain in a position where it has little choice but to leave the convention. Ministers believe it is possible that the Strasbourg court could refuse to hear such a case, though that may be wishful thinking.
Note that this is a court, not a political organization. The ECHR court will simply rule in accordance to the treaty. It will not consider the UK’s threats to leave the treaty in its judgement. It therefore is “wishful thinking” and such an ultimatum is merely grandstanding for the benefit of a domestic audience. If the UK government wishes to leave, it should do so and accept the consequences of that decision. Anything else is merely them trying to deflect the blame for the inevitable consequences by spinning the narrative that they were forced out.
They will never, ever do this
It’s just a political talking point to keep minds off his regimes terrible performance
Which of the Rights does Sunak feel he no longer requires:
* Article 1 – respect of rights
* Article 2 – right to Life
* Article 3 – freedom from torture
* Article 4 – freedom from servitude
* Article 5 – the right to liberty and security
* Article 6 – the right to a fair trial
* Article 7 – the right to not be retroactively criminalised
* Article 8 – the right to privacy
* Article 9 – conscience and religion
* Article 10 – expression
* Article 11 – association
* Article 12 – marriage
* Article 13 – effective remedy
* Article 14 – discrimination
* Article 15 – the state right to derogate
* Article 16 – the state rights regarding foreign parties
* Article 17 – Right to not have rights abused by treaty
* Article 18 – the state right for treaty rights to only be used for the purpose provided.
Because it is entirely possible for him to *Covenant* out of the Treaty on a personal level. Indeed the whole Cabinet could lead by example and covenant out of the ECHR. They sign a contract to exercise none of the ECHR rights and then come back and show us how well it works.
All the Tories need to do is exercise their ability – existing without any need for legislation, it is a simple contract. Which would need to be public – (it would give up Article 8 rights) – and it would need to be retroactive – (it woud give up Article 7 rights) – and my interpretation of Sunak’s rights would be final – (having given up Article 6 rights, there is no real right to enforcement of contract, but covenants can be enforced).
Reality is that if Sunak is serious, he gives up all his human rights before anyone else. For no reason other than it will prove what an essential step it is that all people should take.
21 comments
[Archive Link](https://archive.is/XJMxx). Article text follows.
—
By Tim Shipman, Chief Political Commentator.
Rishi Sunak is prepared to take Britain out of the European convention on human rights (ECHR) after being warned that 65,000 illegal migrants are expected to come to the country this year.
Official estimates suggest there will be almost a 50 per cent increase in illegal migration on last year, when 45,000 claimed asylum, many of them after crossing the Channel in small boats.
Sunak and Suella Braverman, the home secretary, are finalising plans for the most draconian immigration legislation seen in this country. Officials say the plans, to be unveiled within weeks, will take Britain to the “boundaries” of international law.
But senior figures say if judges at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg rule that the new plans are unlawful, the prime minister is open to withdrawing from the convention.
“The PM has been clear he wants to introduce legislation that meets our international obligations,” a source familiar with Sunak’s thinking said. “This bill will go as far as possible within international law. We are pushing the boundaries of what is legally possible, while staying within the ECHR. And we are confident that when it is tested in the courts, we will win.
“But if this legislation gets onto the statute book and is found to be lawful by our domestic courts, but it is still being held up in Strasbourg, then we know the problem is not our legislation or our courts.
“If that’s the case, then of course he will be willing to reconsider whether being part of the ECHR is in the UK’s long-term interests.”
Senior figures say the prime minister is prepared to deploy the nuclear option before the general election if the European court strikes down his plans. But that would put the government on a collision course with MPs and particularly the House of Lords, and it is highly unlikely it would happen before the election due in 2024.
The Tories would then put withdrawal from the ECHR at the heart of their manifesto, drawing a sharp dividing line between the Conservatives and Labour. The plan is proof, allies say, that Sunak shares the hardline instincts of the Tory right on immigration.
The political imperative to stop the boats is heightened by the estimate of 65,000 illegal arrivals this year. Widespread polling and Tory focus groups show that immigration is in the top three issues for voters, with the economy and the NHS. Political aides believe concerns about illegal immigration are strong even in parts of the country little affected by it. They think it has become a test of competence.
The 65,000 figure comes from an official computer model that tracks migration flows around the world. Last year, when 45,000 illegal migrants came to the UK, the model was accurate to within 600 people.
The reason for the increase is that large numbers of people are seeking to move from central Asia, particularly Afghanistan, through Turkey and into Europe.
It was also revealed last week that the number of illegal migrants coming from India on small boats hit 250 in January alone, more than the 233 in the first nine months of last year. If that continues, numbers could hit 70,000 or 80,000 this year, the government’s worst-case scenario.
The good news for Sunak is that none of this modelling includes the deterrent effects of the government’s latest crackdown on illegal immigration or the likely deterrent effect of the new bill becoming law.
The number of people coming from Albania weekly has already fallen to “single figures” after the government struck a deal to return illegal migrants there. Last year
32 per cent of illegal migrants came from Albania, a Nato ally that hopes to join the EU, meaning it is safe to send people back there.
Sunak’s new bill will make it illegal to claim asylum in Britain for those who come here illegally. It will outline plans to deport them within “days or weeks” rather than “months or years” to their country of origin or to Rwanda, with which Britain has signed a deal.
A No 10 source said: “For the first time, if you come here illegally, you can expect to be detained and removed from the UK. It’s as simple as that. You won’t be able to claim asylum in the UK — which 90 per cent of small-boats arrivals did last year — and you won’t be able to abuse our world-leading modern slavery protections either.
“Instead, your claim will be swiftly processed and you will be removed to a safe country, whether that’s the country you came from if it is safe, like Albania, or a safe country we have an agreement with, like Rwanda.”
The legislation will also rewrite some of Britain’s modern slavery rules, which are used by eight out of ten asylum seekers coming to the UK. There will also be provision to set up new detention centres for arrivals, some of them on old Ministry of Defence land.
The government has already won a High Court ruling that the Rwanda programme is legal. Campaigners will fight in the Court of Appeal in April to have the judgment overturned. It could then be referred to the Supreme Court, but ministers are hopeful that appeal judges will rule that there are no legal grounds for that.
Sunak expects the European court to rule on the Rwanda plan by the end of this year, and ministers believe Strasbourg will be wary of overturning a ruling by a British court. The new bill will, he hopes, be passed this year with a Strasbourg hearing likely early next year. Isaac Levido, the Tory election chief, has told the prime minister he must show progress on illegal immigration before the general election, expected in May or June 2024.
Winning the Rwanda case is essential for the government or it will not be able to deport asylum seekers who come from non-friendly countries, since they cannot be sent home. Once the Rwanda scheme has full legal approval, ministers will seek to sign deals with other safe countries.
The new legislation is taking time because Sunak wants it to be legally watertight. A previous bill, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, has achieved little.
A Downing Street source said: “We know how critical it is to have a bill that not only gets through parliament but that can be upheld in the courts. As we have seen with Rwanda, anything we do in this space will be challenged — and so it needs to be legally watertight.”
The Supreme Court, now presided over by Lord Reed, is believed to be more likely to take the government’s side than it was under Baroness Hale, who was president when the court ruled Boris Johnson’s prorogation of parliament unlawful in 2019.
But the real test will be whether the European Court of Human Rights seeks a confrontation. The government’s position is effectively an ultimatum to the Strasbourg court not to put Britain in a position where it has little choice but to leave the convention. Ministers believe it is possible that the Strasbourg court could refuse to hear such a case, though that may be wishful thinking.
“The PM is as frustrated as the public that the number of people arriving here illegally in small boats has risen fourfold in the last two years,” a senior figure said.
“He wants to go as far as legally possible to fix the issue — and he is not afraid to push the limits of the refugee convention or ECHR to prevent our country from being exploited by organised crime gangs and those that would skip the queue.
“If people crossing the Channel know that when they arrive in the UK they will be put in detention, their claims will be processed in a matter of days or at most weeks, and then they will be flown to a safe country like Rwanda, they will stop coming.”
A small town’s worth each year. Totally sustainable lol
… to be replaced with something far, far worse.
I’m embarrassed and saddened to see this happening to my country.
It’s getting turkeys to vote for Christmas. They’ll strip the rights under the pretence of the boats, but their voters will be shocked as soon as they use the same powers on them. This is going to end up in proper leopards eating face territory.
Give the way this gov has treated its citizens, I’d have thought they already have
Labour should just out and say that anything the Tories do between now and the election – with respect to human rights being removed – will be undone by the incoming labour government.
Imagine the level of secret corrupt dealings going on behind closed doors right now… the tories have been corrupt for the duration of their rule. With it increasing dramatically in recently years, so i can only imagine how rife it is now that they know they wont be reelected.
Headlines like this are great distractions for the press
And the 24/7 fire hose of shit shows no sign of abating.
Mind that time we told leave voters they’d do this? Good times, good times.
And still we Brits just sit here taking to social media venting anger here venting anger at NHS workers venting anger and frustration at civil servants when in actual fact at this point we should be on the streets overthrowing the government and retaking control of OUR country. Still when it’s all too late we’ll all start saying why didn’t we do anything. Stable door horse bolted situation.
It’s quite fucking mind blowing that there’s a Western democracy (?) in 2023 that seriously ~~contemplates leaving~~ will leave the convention of **human rights**.
You’d think we’ve gone far enough as a society that certain principles and rights are untouchable, your **human rights** being one of them.
Anyone thinking that something “better” will follow is naïve, “better” things will follow just as much as the £350M/week for the NHS did post-Brexit, or the fantastic international trade deals did follow.
I’ve been living here for 16 years as an EU Citizen, shit like this is _exactly_ why I never bothered with the citizenship and I’m glad I never did – who, in their sane mind, would out of their own will want to be a subject of a country that does not want to respect human rights and uses desperate, illegal immigrants as a straw man and distraction tactic to strip the rights off from their own citizens?
Seriously, to hell with this, anyone reasonable won’t want to move to the UK because it will be far too risky now.
Hasn’t all kinds of shit like rape or torture (murder?) been made legal **for secret services** a few years back, too?
I vaguely recall they got a whole ton activity legalised for themselves, things that wouldn’t normally be legal, if only found to be in the country’s interest or something. Can’t find the links though, but 100% something was going on so if anyone could drop a link to help resurface that one, it would be awesome.
The word ‘illegal’ doing a lot of heavy lifting in that article. To be clear, migrating is not an illegal activity. Shipman is – gasps in disbelief – factually incorrect.
I remember seeing people say this was one of the key purposes of Brexit, to diminish human and workers rights and basically turn us into a country of sweatshops and exploited labour for vulture capitalists.
I also remember them being called stupid and laughed at for believing that but here we are.
The Good Friday Agreement is intertwined with our membership of the ECHR. We try and mess with the GFA and just see what happens – Biden will be on the phone to Sunak in no time and minds will be changed.
This is a direct attack on our human rights the government have surrendered their right to govern now let’s show them what we do to fascists
I’m German so please apologize my commenting, but I have a question: Whenever I read something absurd Cruella Braverman either initiated or fully supports it. It’s like she wakes up and decides to win the worst-possible-human-trophy for the day. Is it just me and my limited knowledge … or is she really that vile?
People in here don’t want to admit it, but half of this is your fault. If Labour had compromised on things like immigration we would never have left the EU & Labour would have stood a chance of getting in. But you were too arrogant & ignorant. 64
Bonkers. Especially when you consider the Convention was actually written in 1948 by BRITISH lawyers
Ffs is there ever going to be a party which cares about our human rights and doesn’t fuck the economy at the same time?
Edit: could this be scare mongering to stop the illegal immigration. I bloody well hope so.
Leaving the treaty would be a disaster for the UK even if you don’t care about the human rights of non-citizens and don’t mind stripping legal protections from every UK citizen. Both the Withdrawal Agreement and the large parts of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU are predicated on the UK upholding the ECHR. For example: law enforcement, immigration and legal cooperation parts of the TCA will be suspended because various member states’ constitutions do not allow them to cooperate with countries not signed up to the ECHR or similar treaties. Similarly, because the ECHR is integrated in EU member state privacy law, data protection regulations would start cutting out UK companies (which would hobble any UK business that uses personal information of EU clients). It would put the UK on the same footing as Russia or Belarus where these laws concerned.
Additionally, the Good Friday Agreement and the NI political settlement also obliges the UK to uphold the convention, mandating its incorporation into NI law. The UK would therefore either break the Good Friday Agreement or operate under two separate legal regimes where human rights were concerned.
> But the real test will be whether the European Court of Human Rights seeks a confrontation. The government’s position is effectively an ultimatum to the Strasbourg court not to put Britain in a position where it has little choice but to leave the convention. Ministers believe it is possible that the Strasbourg court could refuse to hear such a case, though that may be wishful thinking.
Note that this is a court, not a political organization. The ECHR court will simply rule in accordance to the treaty. It will not consider the UK’s threats to leave the treaty in its judgement. It therefore is “wishful thinking” and such an ultimatum is merely grandstanding for the benefit of a domestic audience. If the UK government wishes to leave, it should do so and accept the consequences of that decision. Anything else is merely them trying to deflect the blame for the inevitable consequences by spinning the narrative that they were forced out.
They will never, ever do this
It’s just a political talking point to keep minds off his regimes terrible performance
Which of the Rights does Sunak feel he no longer requires:
* Article 1 – respect of rights
* Article 2 – right to Life
* Article 3 – freedom from torture
* Article 4 – freedom from servitude
* Article 5 – the right to liberty and security
* Article 6 – the right to a fair trial
* Article 7 – the right to not be retroactively criminalised
* Article 8 – the right to privacy
* Article 9 – conscience and religion
* Article 10 – expression
* Article 11 – association
* Article 12 – marriage
* Article 13 – effective remedy
* Article 14 – discrimination
* Article 15 – the state right to derogate
* Article 16 – the state rights regarding foreign parties
* Article 17 – Right to not have rights abused by treaty
* Article 18 – the state right for treaty rights to only be used for the purpose provided.
Because it is entirely possible for him to *Covenant* out of the Treaty on a personal level. Indeed the whole Cabinet could lead by example and covenant out of the ECHR. They sign a contract to exercise none of the ECHR rights and then come back and show us how well it works.
All the Tories need to do is exercise their ability – existing without any need for legislation, it is a simple contract. Which would need to be public – (it would give up Article 8 rights) – and it would need to be retroactive – (it woud give up Article 7 rights) – and my interpretation of Sunak’s rights would be final – (having given up Article 6 rights, there is no real right to enforcement of contract, but covenants can be enforced).
Reality is that if Sunak is serious, he gives up all his human rights before anyone else. For no reason other than it will prove what an essential step it is that all people should take.