The British government leads Akesson and Bush to blockade the courts to smuggle refugees into Rwanda.

UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is in despair. He is losing voters on both the right and the left and will be sacked as Tory leader after the election. Why his government is now pushing legislation to smuggle refugees into Rwanda is barring the Supreme Court from reviewing whether it violates the country's human rights laws.

It shows what Jimmy Akesson (SD) and Eppa Bush (KD) need to stop refugees from seeking asylum in Sweden.

The independence of the courts from the government and the Riksdag is enshrined in the Constitution of the European Union and the Acts of the Council of Europe. And Britain is proud to be one of the world's An ancient democracy. But it doesn't have a written constitution, so the government can give its own interpretation of politicians' power.

The Supreme Court has ruled The Tory government's plans to send refugees to Rwanda without giving them the chance to claim asylum in the UK are illegal. Rwanda is not a safe country for migrants.

Supreme Court judges said people deported to Rwanda had “substantial reasons” to believe the Rwandan government might send them to unsafe places.

But months after the court verdict, Prime Minister Sunak came back to Parliament with the same proposal. But adding that “Rwanda is a safe country”.

The government also says that “every decision-maker should consider Rwanda a safe country”. According to Rishi Sunak, the “decision makers” include the courts.

Sunak's Tory party not only lost votes to Labour, but right-wing populists Reformed UK Going back in Polls More than 10 percent. This year's general election could be a historic disaster for the Tories.

of the British Parliament Human rights groups objected Against the government's Rwanda programs and the proposal to bar the courts from taking an independent position. It undermines both the rule of law and the independence of the courts:

According to Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights, this is a “significant point” for a bill. Although Britain does not have a written constitution, this “undermines the constitutional role of the judiciary, affecting both the separation of powers and the rule of law”.

Bar AssociationCompany manager Ian Jeffrey accuses the government of putting itself above the country's laws and the rule of law:

“The measures taken in this bill effectively place the government above the law and demonstrate a profound lack of respect for the rule of law and the balance of power.

United Nations legal experts Rwanda has warned the government that the plans are in direct violation of international conventions on refugee rights.

“The provisions in the Rwanda bill interfere with the independence of the judiciary and violate international law.”

The British House of Lords adamantly rejected the government's plans, but since the House of Commons could override the House of Lords, Rishi Sunak's plans finally came through after a night of chaos. Rishi Sunak sent his best wishes to all the refugees;

“The passage of this law will allow us to do that and make it very clear that if you're here illegally, you can't stay”.

Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Michael O'Flaherty condemns the Rwanda decision and reminds that Britain, as a member, must follow international asylum rules.

Although the government and parliament have decided that the British courts cannot review the decision that Rwanda is a safe country to send refugees to, the European Court of Justice has the power to stop flights from taking off pending a court review.

But Rishi Sunak has also earned the right to do so Ignore the European Court of Justice:

“Ministers have created new powers to override the ban if the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) orders an aircraft to stay on the runway.

The British government has so far paid about SEK 3 billion to the Rwandan government to host refugees. The opposition dismisses the plans as an “expensive gimmick” that would lead to at most 1 per cent of asylum seekers sent to the UK being sent to Rwanda.

of Govt Ministers also seem ignorant About what awaits migrants sent to Africa. When the Minister of Police was asked on a television program whether a refugee from the Congo could be sent to Rwanda despite the conflict between the countries.

“Are Rwanda and Congo different countries?” asked Police Minister Chris Phillips.

In the Swedish EU elections, several parties want to follow in the footsteps of the British government.

+ Christian Democrats Wants to ban refugees seeking asylum in Sweden According to the “Migration Pact 2.0”, Eppa Bush explains that the right to asylum must be tested elsewhere to protect the “European way of life”.

+ Sweden DemocratsThe election message of “My Europe is building walls” meant that refugees would “seek asylum in third countries”. Whether migrants are victims of persecution is not conclusive. According to Jimmy Akesson, the citizens of Sweden “must decide who should move here”.

+ Folk List Wants to “completely abolish the right to asylum”.

The EU Parliament is unlikely to vote on these proposals, as it is highly unlikely that the EU Commission will come up with such a legislative proposal.

But Ulf Kristerson must know that if the parties demand that the Swedish government follow in Britain's footsteps, it will be much more difficult than it has been for Rishi Sunak so far.

For I Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union It was established that each member state should have independent courts and that the government and the Riksdag should follow their judgments.

A slightly longer excerpt from the EU treaty for those in doubt:

“The rule of law includes aspects such as Independence of Courts In relation to other branches of state administration (Executive and Legislative). This means that all individuals in a society and the various branches of state administration (executive and legislative) are bound to follow the law under one supervision. Independent legal systemAnd this regardless of political majority.”