Senior Tory says Suella Braverman wants to act like Putin with hardline alternative Rwanda proposals – UK politics live | Politics

Sir Simon Clarke, the Tory rightwinger and former levelling up secretary, was also on the Today programme this morning. He explained why he thought Damian Green was wrong (see 10.33am) and why he thought Suella Braverman was right to call for legislation that would allow deportation policy to ignore laws like the European convention on human rights. He said:

The fundamental point that we need to address is, as my constituents reminded me on the doorsteps of East Cleveland last night, that we need, as a state, to be able to police our borders. And it cannot be the case that our human rights framework effectively renders that undeliverable, nor that it effectively is able to deny a sovereign parliament the ability to do what people want it to …

Nobody, as the prime minister rightly said this week, when the convention was drawn up in ‘51, thought that it meant the UK should not be able to deport people who come here without permission.

Clarke said that, if Rishi Sunak did not think Suella Braverman’s proposals were needed, he had to explain why.

Asked to respond to Green’s point about Braverman wanting to act like Putin, Clarke said:

With respect, I don’t accept that presumption.

I believe that a sovereign parliament, which is ultimately, of course, the supreme democratic embodiment of the land, going through all the checks and balances of our constitution, that is to say both the Commons and the Lords, is entitled to say that, for the specific purpose of enabling a law which it has just passed to be delivered, is entitled, in extremis, to say that certain sections of other laws are disapplied for the purposes of ensuring that that is delivered.

Clarke also suggested that, if the Lords were to block these plans, the Tories should fight an election on them. He said:

If it becomes clear that we cannot deliver this policy within the constraints of what the Lords would allow, then that is that is an issue which I think we could take to the country, and quite quite reasonably so.

This is not a sort of a trivial issue, or an incidental ones, in the eyes of millions of voters. This is fundamental to their confidence, specifically in this government, but more broadly in the ability of the British state to govern Britain.

With the Conservative party more than 20 points behind in the polls, according to the Politico tracker, there is not a strong appetite for an early election in the party. But today’s Daily Mail front page shows how such an election might be framed.

In his interview on the Today programme this morning Damian Green, the former first secretary of state, explained why he thought Suella Braverman’s call for “notwithstanding” legislation, that would allow the UK to deport people to Rwanda regardless of what other laws say, made her like Putin. (See 9.23am.) He said:

It’s not just all our own laws passed by parliament, and all international treaties that we have signed, that Suella wants to sweep away. She specifically says let’s sweep away all judicial review protection, and all common law protections, and that’s why I said on Twitter that this is the most unconservative proposal I have ever heard.

Conservatives believe in a democratic country run by the rule of law. And dictators, Xi and Putin, would prefer to have the state completely untrammelled by any law. And so, as a democrat I oppose it.

But quite specifically, as a Conservative, because if we Conservatives don’t believe that the state should be controlled by the law, that the government has to obey the law as much as you or I have to obey the law, then that seems to me to be very profoundly unconservative …

If a government takes itself powers that say, there are no constraints on us, none of the edifice of protection of the law that has been built up over the centuries – which by and large Conservatives like me think is one of the glories of this country – then that government would be behaving in a dictatorial way.

And I don’t think parliament should go there. I very definitely don’t think the Conservative party should go there.

Asked how he would respond to Tory colleagues who say parliament should be sovereign, and that it should be able to legislate for the will of the people, Green replied:

Parliament is a sovereign and can do what it likes, but it should also do it and pass it within the framework of the law …

I would say to my colleagues, let’s conceive of the possibility that there’s not a Conservative government in power. Suppose Jeremy Corbyn had come to power and said, ‘I want to nationalise every bit of the British economy. And accept it’s going to be expensive if I have to it legally, so I have to pay compensation, so I’m going to pass a law that removes all legal constraints on the government, and I’m just going to confiscate the whole of the British economy.’ We would have been up in arms about that, and I think defending the principle that governments have to obey the law as well is really important for Conservatives.

Here is a summary of the main points from Suella Braverman’s Telegraph article attacking Rishi Sunak’s revised Rwanda plan.

• Braverman, the former home secretary, criticises the government for not legislating in a way that might have stopped the supreme court ruling the Rwanda deportation policy unlawful. Given that Braverman was in government until Monday, this is a brave argument to make, but Braverman is restating the argument she made in her departure letter on Tuesday, in which she claimed Rishi Sunak repeatedly blocked her ideas. In the Telegraph Braverman says:

The fault lies with the politicians who have failed to introduce legislation that would guarantee delivery of our Rwanda partnership.

And Braverman restates the claim in she made in her letter on Tuesday that Sunak is guilty of “magical thinking”. She says:

What matters for those of us who believe in effective immigration control is how to move forward. This requires honesty.

Above all, it demands of the government an end to self-deception and spin. There must be no more magical thinking. Tinkering with a failed plan will not stop the boats.

Amending our agreement with Rwanda and converting it into a treaty, even with explicit obligations on non-refoulement, will not solve the fundamental issue …

To try and deliver flights to Rwanda under any new treaty would still require going back through the courts, a process that would likely take at least another year.

That process could culminate in yet another defeat, on new grounds, or on similar grounds to Wednesday: principally, that judges can’t be certain Rwanda will abide by the terms of any new treaty.

That is why the plan outlined by the PM will not yield flights to Rwanda before an election if Plan B is simply a tweaked version of the failed Plan A.

• She proposes a new, five-point plan to enable deportations to Rwanda to start quickly. I have quoted the key element in full already. (See 9.23am.) Here are the other four proposals in full.

The Bill must address the Supreme Court’s concerns regarding Rwanda

Parliament is entitled to assert that Rwanda is safe without making any changes to our Rwanda partnership.
However, for substantive and presentational reasons, it would be preferable to amend that agreement to address issues identified by the judges. This could include embedding UK observers and independent reviewers of asylum decisions.
It is less important whether these commitments are embodied in an amended memorandum or a new treaty.
What is crucial is that they are practical steps to improve Rwanda’s asylum system. On the basis of these new commitments, Rwanda’s safety could be credibly confirmed on the face of the Bill.

Swift removal must mean swift removal
Those arriving illegally must be removed in a matter of days rather than months as under the Illegal Migration Act. This means amending the act to ensure that removals to Rwanda are mandated under the duty to remove, with strict time limits. This will streamline the Home Office process as much as possible, so that the only Home Office decision is to determine whether an individual falls within the scheme or not.

Those arriving here illegally must be detained
Legal challenges to detention must be excluded to avoid burdening the courts, making it clear that detention is mandated until removal.

This must be treated as an emergency
The bill should be introduced by Christmas recess and Parliament should be recalled to sit and debate it over the holiday period.

• She questions the value of international law, referring at one point to the “vague, shifting, and unaccountable concept of “international law’”. She says:

The more fundamental question is where does ultimate authority in the United Kingdom sit? Is it with the British people and their elected representatives in Parliament? Or is it with the vague, shifting, and unaccountable concept of “international law”?

In a post last week, in response to a question from a reader, I explained why Braverman could be described as far right. This article makes the case for using the label even stronger.

Good morning. In Politico’s London Playbook briefing this morning, Eleni Courea quotes “a Tory minister allied with [Rishi] Sunak” claiming: “All things considered this week went as well it could have gone – the Rwanda judgment could have been a moment that open warfare broke out in the party, but that didn’t happen.”

Optimism is a good trait to have in life, but this is looking premature, to put it mildly. This morning the effective leader of one faction in the Conservative party is accusing the effective leader of another – quite seriously, it seems – of wanting to act like Putin.

The row has been triggered by Suella Braverman, the former home secretary. After she was sacked her allies briefed that she was ready to unleash a “grid of shit” on Sunak (“grid” is Whitehallspeak for news announcements lined up in advance) and one element has turned up this morning in the Daily Telegraph. On Wednesday Braverman said on X the government should respond to the supreme court Rwanda judgment by passing emergency legislation allowing the UK to ignore the European convention on human rights on this policy. In the Telegraph she has explained this plan in detail, and firmed it up.

Here is the most controversial proposal.

The [new Rwanda bill promised by Sunak] must enable flights before the next general election

Legislation must therefore circumvent the lengthy process of further domestic litigation, to ensure that flights can take off as soon as the new bill becomes law. To do this, the bill must exclude all avenues of legal challenge. The entirety of the Human Rights Act and European convention on human rights, and other relevant international obligations, or legislation, including the Refugee Convention, must be disapplied by way of clear “notwithstanding” clauses.
Judicial Review, all common law challenges, and all injunctive relief, including the suspensive challenges available under the Illegal Migration Act must be expressly excluded. Individuals would, however, be given the chance to demonstrate that they had entered the country legally, were under 18, or were medically unfit to fly – but Home Office decisions on these claims could not be challenged in court.

Last night Damian Green, who was de facto deputy PM under Theresa May, said this proposal meant Braverman wanted to act like Vladimir Putin.

The second test is the most unconservative statement I have ever heard from a Conservative politician. Giving the state the explicit power to override every legal constraint is what Putin and Xi do. We absolutely cannot go there.

This is not just a row between two backbenchers. Green is chair of the One Nation Conservative Caucus. It is not a particularly powerful group in the party now, but it does represent what many voters might still think of as traditional Conservatism. And Braverman will be the lead candidate for the right in a future leadership contest; currently she is fourth favourite to win.

Green was not the only Tory tweeting about Braverman’s article last night. Sir Simon Clarke, levelling up secretary in Liz Truss’s government, says he agrees with Braverman’s plan, and that if the Lords block it, Sunak should call an election.

Suella sets out clear and rigorous tests for new legislation on small boats. We should be crystal clear: half measures won’t work. We need the legislation that is brought forward to be truly effective, and if the Lords block it – let’s take it to the country.

I will post more from Braverman’s article, and from Green and Clarke, who were both on the Today programme this morning, shortly.

Here is the agenda for the day.

Morning: Rishi Sunak is on a visit in Nottinghamshire, where he is due to record a pooled TV clip.

Morning: Keir Starmer is visting a carbon capture storage facility in Aberdeen with Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, and Ed Miliband, the shadow climate change and net zero secretary. Starmer will record a pooled TV clip, and in the afternoon he is recording an interview with the News Agents podcast.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting, too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.