Originally Posted by
Swiss Peter
Does the government have legal advisors that stress-test this kind of policy to assess its robustness within the parameters of law against legal scrutiny and challenge? Of course.
What would have been those advisor’s conclusions with respect to this policy? Who knows (…although we’ve seen those reports of their own advisers warnings over the unsuitability of Rwanda as a destination).
Assuming the Government took advice, did it then act upon that advice and adapt its approach to better withstand this challenge? It appears not, based upon the success of those challenges.
So maybe they knew it probably wouldn’t work, and maybe that never actually mattered very much. What mattered was the signal – the meat (lets say gammon, for arguments sake) being thrown out to the hungry pack baying for more stringent immigration controls. A cynical ploy to buy political credit/time, to be seen to be doing something, that they themselves knew probably wouldn’t work.
And they probably knew that their easily-manipulated footsoldiers, who willingly rush to defend this kind of stuff, would end up looking a bit stupid, but were more likely to blame the lawyers or the lefties rather than the ones who instigated a flawed policy in the first place.
Reply With Quote