‘The myriad problems with the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, as well as the policy that the Bill is supposed to facilitate, have been clearly documented. One common criticism is that the Bill would precipitate a “constitutional crisis” by provoking the courts into refusing to recognise its legal effect. Adam Tucker argues that the Bill’s most problematic sections could very well “count as a novel entry in our canon of possible limits of parliamentary sovereignty”. Jeff King argues that the House of Lords would be justified in radically amending or voting the Bill down, precisely because of the danger that it might incite a constitutional crisis. The Lords suggested sweeping amendments to the Bill, all of which were rejected by the Commons. The Bill will continue to go through a ping-pong process between each House before a final wording is settled.’

Full Story

UK Constitutional Law Association, 26th March 2024

Source: ukconstitutionallaw.org