Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "Simon Clarke makes what newspapers call a "dramatic intervention"" video.

  1. The Lords were nothing short of ingenious in this vote! They have not voted for or against the bill, nor even asked for any amendments, at least yet. They have simply said, “If Rwanda is a, ‘safe,’ place to send asylum seekers, please prove that to us?” A very reasonable sounding request on the face of it. There are contesting opinions as to the safety of Rwanda. We have been accepting refugees FROM Rwanda, even since this whole, “stop the boats,” nonsense began! So, all the government needs to do is prove that Rwanda is as safe as they claim and not the danger hotspot that opponents claim. And how do you do that, when there are opposing opinions on a crucial aspect of a bill? You get a court ruling, right? And, oh dear . . . Seems the courts have already ruled on this, so the government will need to persuade them to take up the case again. And to do that, they would need to persuade them that there is new evidence to look at. Now, given that the court’s ruling sited UN, NATO and EU laws and treaties to which we are committed (certainly NOT just the EU legislation the Tories keep banging on about!) where will they find any new evidence that would so much as challenge all three bodies enough to persuade them that there is even any reason to take up the case a second time, let alone actually find in their favour? In short, it was a stroke of sheer, artful genius! And, incidentally, coming back to an earlier discussion you raised, one of the best arguments for keeping a second chamber in the first place.
    8
  2. Well, when you’re dumb enough to think that THE most vulnerable people on Earth would make for a good political football in the first place, you’re certainly dumb enough to score own goals and cheer while you kick it to the back of the net. This truly is the most loathsome iteration of the Tories I have seen in my lifetime.
    4