On Monday, Britain's House of Lords voted 214 to 171 to delay a controversial treaty that would pave the way for a deportation plan that would send asylum seekers to Rwanda, according to the Associated Press.
British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak hints at holding general elections in the second half of 2024, giving him more time to shore up support.
The measure is called "The Migration Treaty." The vote is seen as largely symbolic but could signal more opposition down the road. The House of Lords, which is filled with appointees rather than individuals who were voted in, posits that measures need to be undertaken to ensure the safety of Rwanda.
The treaty and accompanying bill are key for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's plan to circumvent the opposition to deportations by the U.K. Supreme Court.
John Kerr, a former diplomat who sits in the Lords, said the Rwanda plan was "incompatible with our responsibilities" under international human rights law.
"The considerations of international law and national reputation ... convince me that it wouldn't be right to ratify this treaty at any time," he added. Though the House of Lords cannot block an international treaty, ignoring their overture could be used against the ruling government later.
The bill was approved in the House of Commons last week but after 60 members of the governing party, Conservatives dissented in order to make the legislation tougher. Many in the House of Lords want a watered-down version of the bill.
Read Also: Rishi Sunak's Rwanda Deportation Bill Survives Third Reading in Commons After Tory Rebels Back Down
However, unlike in the House of Commons, the Conservatives do not have a majority. The upper house can postpone and amend legislation but cannot overrule the Commons, which is elected.
The bill is part of Sunak's immigration plan to "stop the boats" bringing unauthorized migrants to the United Kingdom from France by way of the English Channel.
It's worth noting that Sunak's parents, immigrants of Indian ethnicity, were born in East Africa.
Background On Rwanda and Britain
The deal was made between Rwanda and Britain two years ago under which migrants who cross the English Channel would be sent to Rwanda, where they would take up permanent residency.
Rwanda has been paid $305 million thus far under the agreement. Yet, no one has been sent there as of yet. After it was challenged in British courts, the U.K. Supreme Court ruled in November that the policy was illegal because Rwanda isn't a safe country for refugees.
Both Kegali and London signed a new treaty looking to strengthen migrant protections.
The Conservatives argue that the treaty allows them to pass a law declaring Rwanda a safe destination.
The law, if approved by Parliament, would allow the government to "disapply" sections of the Human Rights Law when it comes to Rwanda and asylum claims, making it hard to challenge deportation in court.
