Sunak's government's proposal to transfer irregular migrants to Rwanda may prompt a vote of confidence in his government (Anatolia)

A British writer said that his country's parliament works in mysterious ways, which is one of the wonders of what it does, warning at the same time that Britain is facing a constitutional crisis that could topple Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

Philip Johnston, assistant editor of the Telegraph newspaper, explained that the British government's proposal to transfer irregular migrants to Rwanda, which was referred to the House of Lords, has turned political positions upside down and may prompt a vote of confidence in Sunak's government.

He pointed out that the House of Lords deliberated on the Rwanda draft law in its second reading last Monday, but it only postponed the occurrence of an upcoming severe crisis over this legislation.

The House of Commons approved their deportation

The British House of Commons, which is the lower chamber of Parliament, approved by a majority of its members a draft law allowing the deportation of some asylum seekers to the country of Rwanda.

The government received a majority for its efforts to send potential migrants to the African country, although most speakers registered their opposition.

In his article in the newspaper, Johnston quoted Sunak as saying that the treaty with Rwanda had been concluded, and that the legislation deeming Rwanda a safe country had been passed without amendment in the elected chamber, that is, the House of Commons.

The British official added that there is only one question left: “Will the opposition in the appointed House of Lords attempt to thwart the will of the people as expressed by the elected lower chamber?”

Sunak implicitly described the Lords as “undemocratic”

However, the Telegraph's assistant editor said that Sunak's reference to the House of Lords as an "appointed chamber" implied a deliberate criticism of its "undemocratic" composition, even though many of its members are former ministers appointed by Sunak himself and his predecessors as prime minister.

One of them is Lord Clarke, former Speaker of the House of Lords, who until that moment had been a supporter of the policy of deporting migrants seeking asylum to Rwanda, because any tough and effective action against “illegal” immigration was necessary to reassure the people that “we have good control of our borders.”

“If people think we have lost control (of state borders), it portends a very bad shift in the public’s attitude because of the doubts,” he said.

Johnston commented on this statement by saying that Lord Clarke was ready to accept the decision to deport immigrants to a safe third country as an appropriate measure.

Rwanda is not safe

But Britain's Supreme Court decided to change all that in November when judges ruled that Rwanda was unsafe due to the possibility of being returned to their homelands in what is known as "forced refugee returns."

The author of the article believes that the solution to this problem is clear, which is for the government to withdraw from all these treaties, “which it does not wish to do, for reasons including the possibility that Parliament will not ratify” such a step.

Johnston described what is happening in Britain regarding the issue of deporting immigrants as "a government-made political chaos that threatens to turn into a constitutional crisis."

In conclusion, the assistant editor of the British newspaper asked: Will Rwanda’s name be written on Sunak’s political tombstone?

Source: Telegraph