The plane that was due to fly in June 2022 has still not taken to the air. Back then, just minutes before the Boeing 767 was preparing to take a first group of asylum seekersPeople who have left their countries due to danger and are seeking refuge elsewhere. from the UK to East Africa, the flight was cancelled. A year and a half later, the government has still not managed to make its RwandaA country in the centre of Africa. At least 500,000 people were killed in the appalling genocide of 1994. deportation plan work.

The Rwanda policy has a long and tumultuousDifficult and constantly changing. history of legal challenges. Initially ruled lawful by the High Court, this decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal, which concluded that there was a "real risk" that asylum seekers could be returned by Rwanda to the countries they fled due to persecution or "inhumaneCruel, or without compassion. treatment".¹

But the Supreme Court's judgment could be the fatal blow. It suggests that the Rwanda policy is potentially in breach of four international agreements on the treatment of refugees, as well as five pieces of domestic legislationLegislation consists of a law or laws passed by a government..

Furthermore, Britain is not the first country to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda. Between 2014 and 2017, an estimated 4,000 people were deported by Israel to Rwanda and Uganda, which human rights organisations claim systematically violated the rights of asylum seekers.²

The UK's prime minister Rishi Sunak is refusing to be deterred by the decision, assuring MPsMembers of Parliament. MPs are elected to represent people in 650 different geographical areas.  that he will push through emergency legislation in defiance of the ruling.

Advocates of the Rwanda plan say that it is overwhelmingly popular among the British public. But a recent YouGov poll indicated that just 10% of people think that it is a good idea, suggesting that it may not only be immoral, but undemocratic too.³

With £120 million already paid out to Rwanda by the British taxpayer, it is easy to see why the Tory leadership is desperate to cling on to the scheme. But many lamentShow passionate sadness. that the money is being sent 6,500 km away, rather than being used to raise the quality of life of asylum seekers in Britain.

Charities have estimated that more than 50,000 refugees could be made homeless by the end of the year in the UK.⁴

Asylum seekers constitute by no means a small portion of the population. Every minute, 20 people leave their homes to escape war, persecution and terror.⁵ It could be any of us, some say. How would you want to be treated?

Yes: The policy is both unlawful and illegal. As the Supreme Court has evidenced, there is a strong possibility that asylum seekers could be forced to leave Rwanda and return to the place they were fleeing from to face further persecution or even death.

No: It is not the UK's responsibility to take in hundreds of asylum seekers per day when the country cannot house them or process all of their applications. It is an imperfect solution, but a necessary one.

Or... Regardless of the morality aspect, belonging to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is hugely important for the UK's relationship with the rest of the world. The UK government must follow this ruling.