Of the hardliners in the ruling Conservative Party who voted against, only 11 actually voted against.
If it were rejected due to a revolt by the party’s lawmakers, Sunak would be in danger of resigning.
[AP/뉴시스] British Prime Minister Rishi Sunnack is emphasizing the need for the bill at the Prime Minister’s Questions and Answers in the House of Commons held before the final vote on the Rwandan Immigration Bill on the night of the 17th.
[서울=뉴시스] Reporter Kim Jae-young = Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, who was on the verge of resigning as prime minister, survived as the British House of Commons passed the ‘Rwandan Immigration Act’ on the night of the 17th (Wednesday).
Rwanda’s immigration law is a groundbreaking measure to ‘block illegal immigrants from indiscriminately landing’ that the ruling Conservative Party (Tory) has attempted for nearly three years since Boris Johnson was Prime Minister.
After many twists and turns, hard-line right-wing members of the Conservative Party expressed their intention to vote against this newly drafted immigration bill, saying, “It is weak and we need to get stronger,” putting not only the immigration bill but also Prime Minister Sunnack’s position in jeopardy.
In the House of Representatives, the Conservative Party has an absolute majority of 30 seats, exceeding the 318-seat majority, but 61 of them are hard-right right-wingers, presenting amendments that are ‘national selfishness ignoring international law’ that even Prime Minister Sunnack, who is desperately hoping for the bill to pass, cannot accept. Passage of the main bill became uncertain.
If the 61 right-wing rebel MPs all vote against in the third reading vote on the 17th, the Rwandan immigration bill will be rejected and Prime Minister Sunnack will be subject to a vote of no confidence in his own party, relinquishing the position of party leader and the automatically linked position of prime minister. It’s erotic.
The vote was passed with a vote of 320 in favor to 276 against. Of the Tory rebel right-wingers, only 11 actually voted against, while the rest voted in favor or abstained (18). Opposition parties, including the main opposition Labor Party, which has less than 210 seats, and the Liberal Democratic Party, have opposed the ruling Tory’s Rwandan immigration law from the beginning, calling it a ‘barbaric law’ that ignores and tramples domestic and international laws related to humanitarianism.
Therefore, the vote against is the coexistence of two forces with completely opposite tendencies and contents. If the opposition parties, including the Labor Party and other parties, follow the Sunnack bill, which says that it is not possible for the UK to put illegal immigrants and immigrants attempting to enter the country on a ‘one-way’ flight to Rwanda in Africa and throw them away ‘like garbage’ just for the sake of convenience, European judges may put the brakes on it and invalidate it, even if the British judges do not know. There was a mix of right-wing Tory lawmakers who said that anti-international law measures should be taken to block this in advance.
The idea of Rwanda’s immigration law is to send immigrants who have applied for asylum, who under current international law must be reviewed after staying, to distant Rwanda to be reviewed there to see whether they will be granted asylum. In particular, it is called the ‘Rwanda’ one-way ticket law’ because it states that ‘immigration attempts who are allowed to apply for asylum must live in Rwanda, not the UK.’
Several illegal immigrants filed a complaint to the British court, and the British Supreme Court ultimately ruled in November last year that “Rwanda is not a humanitarian ‘safe country’ as defined by British domestic law and is therefore invalid in conflict with other laws.” Prime Minister Sunnack did not give in to this. An amendment bill that states that it is okay to violate domestic humanitarian laws only with respect to Rwanda’s immigration law was prepared and submitted to the House of Representatives.
The hard-line Tory right wing opposed this bill, saying, “It should include language that says it is okay to break international law.” Prime Minister Sunnack and most Tory MPs opposed the hard-liners’ amendment, saying that the Rwandan government announced that it would nullify its contract with Britain if Britain sent migrants attempting to emigrate in violation of international humanitarian law, and that Britain’s national prestige was at stake. It was voted on as per the original plan.
If passed by the Senate, it would allow dozens of illegal immigrants to be sent on one-way flights to Rwanda for the first time before regular general elections scheduled for the end of the year or early next year. Britain has already given Rwanda $300 million.
In 2015, when more than 1 million people attempting to immigrate poured in like a tide, Germany actively allowed them due to the courage of then-Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Britain’s Conservative government had the same conservative stance, but took a different approach. As the number of immigrants attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats from Calais in northern France and land in the UK increased from 1,000 to 45,000, Rwanda’s immigration law stipulated that ‘even if asylum in the UK is granted, people must live in Rwanda for the rest of their lives’. It is difficult to devise and legislate it.
Rwanda’s immigration bill is currently uncertain of passage through the Senate.
◎ Sympathetic media Newsis [email protected]