refullment of those sent to it. that is something the courts have already accepted. it is something that it is open to this house to do, and it is something in myjudgment, which is perfectly legitimate for parliament to undertake, it would be different if it was to reverse a decision against an individual, but even if i am wrong about that, even if, as a matter of constitutional convention, it were under social for this house to reverse the effect on a question of principle, namely whether rwanda is safe for the purposes of refullment, the facts have changed. there is now a binding treaty, which is not only binding in international law, but is binding in domestic rwandan law, because rwanda has a system, my right honourable friend the memberfor stone has rightly analysed the situation of international law, in in country we have a dualistjurisdiction where treaties are self executing but in rwanda the treaty is self executing so the treaty will be binding not only as a matter
it was still dark when conservative mps arrived at downing street earlier this morning. over breakfast, the prime minister was trying to persuade them to back his latest attempt to send asylum seekers to rwanda. are you going to vote against the bill? are you satisfied? they were tight lipped on the way out about whether they had been convinced. some have been clear about their doubts. we are all of one mind on this. we all want the government to succeed in stopping the boats. we all want this legislation to be the right tool to deliver that. and i am genuinely grateful to the government for what they have done to make sure that this is the toughest ever piece of legislation. it is still partial and incomplete. successive home secretaries have been to rwanda, but so far no asylum seekers. some conservative mps say the government s latest attempt still falls short, and the plan could remain tangled in legal challenges in the courts. others have warned the government against go