UK

I’ve been through the UK visa system twice now. I'm not sure I would do it again

‘Yahoo News - Insights’ is a new series in which we hear directly from people with an inside track of the big issues. Here, skilled worker Sofia Diogo Mateus explains why the new visa rules may discourage workers the country vitally needs.

Harriet Sinclair
·Trending News Reporter
Updated Wed, 6 December 2023

Home secretary James Cleverly has announced changes to the UK's visa system. 

(Pool via Reuters) (POOL New / reuters)

Sofia Diogo Mateus, 35, is Yahoo News UK's head of audience and has been through the UK's visa system twice.

The government has announced changes to the UK's skilled worker visa that will see the minimum salary for applicants raised to £38,700. The changes mean 300,000 people who would have been eligible for the visa last year will not be in future, home secretary James Cleverly said.

Over the last two years I have gone through the process of applying for a skilled worker visa twice, and if I had to do it again, I'm not sure I would. On both occasions, the processes were long and complex – despite the support of the legal teams paid for by my employers, as well as their financial backing.

The immigration debate is completely divorced from reality. Maybe not the political reality, but the reality of those at the receiving end of it. Allow me to walk you through it:

In early September 2021, I filled out my initial visa application, which included not just all my personal details but every place I have visited in the past five years and why; if had ever been refused a visa for any country in the past 10 years and why; and if I had ever been deported or forced to leave country. Additionally, I had to prove that my bachelors degree was from a British university or I would have to undergo an English-language test.

I have no spouse or children, which would have required extra paperwork. My employer committed to pay £1,420 for a five-year visa, plus £624 per year for me to be able to use the NHS (also known as the healthcare surcharge). That’s a total of £4,540, since the surcharge needs to be paid in full for the five years ahead of time. In fact, it was probably pricier than that, as most companies end up paying extra to fast-track applications through the many delays that plague the Home Office.

Sofia Diogo Mateus questions whether she would go through the visa process again. 

(Sofia Diogo Mateus)

Even with the fast track, it took almost two months for my visa to be approved.

Once that was done, I had to go to a visa centre, hand over my passport and wait another week for it to be handed back to me via courier. I received a 90-day entry visa, and once I had entered the UK, I had to register with the Home Office for my biometric residency permit – much like the type many members of the British public are against having.

Under my visa, I'm not allowed any public funds, and should I have any children, alone or with a partner who is not British or a permanent resident, they too will not be allowed benefits of any kind.

If I lose my job, I immediately lose the right to live in the UK. It's galling to know that if I was made redundant, I would have to pack up the life I have built here and be out of the country within 60 days.

Changing jobs

In September of this year, I decided to change jobs. Before I tell you just how complex the process of “transferring” my visa was, I should tell you that I know no-one who has done it. Among the friends and acquaintances I have who are in the UK on skilled worker visas, everyone is hanging on to them for dear life, as the reluctance to sponsor people is now quite common, even in big employers that were happy to do it immediately after Brexit. We assume it’s the cost but we don’t know.

The visa “transfer” application was essentially the same as the one I did two years ago, which left me wondering why on earth the Home Office needed me to repeat everything I had already declared to them.

But that’s not all: I also had to explain the reason for any absences from the country that were longer than 15 days since I moved here, and detail every single medical treatment I have received, public or private, and show that I had paid for it, despite paying an extra specific fee specifically for the right to use the NHS.

My new employer had to once again pay, this time slightly more because the application happened from within the UK. It’s unclear to me if my previous employer will receive any money back for the NHS surcharge they paid in advance.

Sofia Diogo Mateus spent months waiting for her visa to be approved. 

(Sofia Diogo Mateus)

As I waited to hear about the transfer decision, I was not allowed to leave the country and was told, through independent legal advice, that I should avoid having any time during which I am not employed through sponsorship, for that would likely have an impact on my permanent residency application (which will be available to me after five years under the current rules).

More than two years ago, when I was asked if I wanted to stay in Brussels or move to London, I chose the UK before my employer even had a chance to state that would be their preference too. I also chose the UK over 17 years ago too, when I first moved here for university, albeit under much simpler rules as a European. I have tried to come back to London since I left after my degree, long before Brexit made my life that much harder.

This isn’t a matter of ideology or belief - it’s simple math. In Germany and Belgium, the countries I lived in before, which also have health and care workers shortages, moving is easy. There’s no application, fees or limits and salaries are roughly the same as in the UK, with a lower cost of living and inflation. By and large, moving here is no longer worth it for the people the country desperately needs to keep its economy running. No matter what you believe, there’s no running away from these competing realities.

If I had to go through the UK visa process again, I am pretty sure I wouldn’t – and I certainly would not allow a government to dictate whether I can be with my family or not. No job or amount of money is worth that.

UK

'Where Is He?': Yvette Cooper Mocks Tory 'Chaos' As Robert Jenrick Quits Over Rwanda Plan

“This is the desperate dying days of a party ripping itself apart," says Labour frontbencher as departing immigration minister dodges Commons.


By Graeme Demianyk

HUFFPOST
06/12/2023 

Rishi Sunak can only watch as Yvette Cooper tears into his government.
PARLIAMENT TV

Labour’s Yvette Cooper tore into the Conservative Party for “ripping itself apart” amid chaotic scenes in the House of Commons as Rishi Sunak saw a close ally resign over his Rwanda deportation plan.

Immigration minister Robert Jenrick quit because proposed legislation to end the political stalemate “does not go far enough” – a major blow to Sunak’s authority since the MP was in charge of the policy.

His exit was finally confirmed after rumours swirled over his departure and Jenrick was absent from the House of Commons as the announcement on the changes was made.

Home secretary James Cleverly initially declined to answer several requests for an explanation on Jenrick’s status – but was then informed that the home office minister, Laura Farris, indicated Jenrick had resigned during a radio interview. Cleverly then confirmed to MPs this was the case.

Cooper, the shadow home secretary, pounced as it was unclear what was happening, and she condemned the “total chaos in the government and in the Conservative Party”.

She went on: “This is the desperate dying days of a party ripping itself apart, clearly totally out of ideas, lost any sense of leadership or direction

“We’ve got the home secretary making the statement but the rumours are that the immigration minister has resigned. Where is he?

“They’ve got open warfare on their backbenches and the starting gun has fired on their next leadership election, and once again the whole country paying the price for this chaos.”


Watch the full attack below.



The Conservatives on Wednesday unveiled a bill that will let it ignore a part of the country’s human rights law in order to send asylum seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda.

The legislation is part of government plans to overcome a block by the UK Supreme Court on its Rwanda policy. The court ruled last month that the plan was illegal because Rwanda isn’t a safe country for refugees.

Britain and Rwanda have since signed a treaty pledging to strengthen protection for migrants. The UK government says that will allow it to pass a law declaring Rwanda a safe destination.

Cleverly said the safety of rwanda bill “will make absolutely clear in UK law that Rwanda is a safe country”. He urged MPs to pass the legislation, even though it may violate international human rights rules.

The government says the law will allow it to “disapply” sections of UK human rights law when it comes to Rwanda-related asylum claims.

On the first page of the bill, Cleverly states that he can’t guarantee that it’s compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights — but that MPs should approve it anyway. The bill now faces a battle in parliament.

Sunak's Government plunged into crisis as Robert Jenrick resigns as immigration minister over Rwanda 

Nicholas Cecil and Daniel Keane
Wed, 6 December 2023 


Rishi Sunak’s premiership has been plunged into crisis after his immigration minister Robert Jenrick resigned over his Rwanda policy.

Mr Jenrick’s departure on Wednesday evening sparked immediate doubts over whether the PM could get his “emergency legislation” to salvage his Rwanda deportation plan through the Commons.

He said in a letter to the Prime Minister he said that he had to resign because he has “such strong disagreements with the direction of the Government’s policy on immigration”.

Mr Sunak’s flagship immigration policy was also thrown into further doubt by Rwanda warning that the deal with the UK Government had to be legal.

In a statement, Rwanda's foreign affairs minister Vincent Biruta said: “It has always been important to both Rwanda and the UK that our rule of law partnership meets the highest standards of international law, and it places obligations on both the UK and Rwanda to act lawfully.”

Mr Jenrick was missing from the frontbench as Home Secretary James Cleverly gave a statement to the Commons on Wednesday over the government's bid to rescue the deal to fly migrants who arrive illegally in the UK to Rwanda.


Mr Jenrick had been taking an increasingly firm approach over plans to stop asylum seekers making unauthorised crossings of the Channel in small boats in recent weeks.

The draft Bill, published on Wednesday, compels judges to treat Rwanda as a safe country after the Supreme Court ruled the scheme was unlawful over risks to refugees.The legislation, which must be voted on by Parliament, gives ministers the powers to disregard sections of the Human Rights Act. But it does not go as far as providing powers to dismiss the European Convention on Human Rights, as Tory hardliners including former home secretary Suella Braverman have demanded.

As Home Secretary James Cleverly outlined details of the new law in the Commons, the Government faced the threat of a full-scale revolt by Tory Right-wingers over the plan as he was also forced to confirm Mr Jenrick's resignation.

Home Secretary James Cleverly signed a new treaty with Rwandan minister of foreign affairs Vincent Biruta on Tuesday (PA) (PA Wire)

Shortly after Mr Jenrick published his departure letter to the Prime Minister on social media.

He said he was "grateful" for Mr Sunak moving towards his position on the legislation, but added he does not "believe it provides us with the best possible chance of success".

"A Bill of the kind you are proposing is a triumph of hope over experience," he wrote.

"The stakes for the country are too high for us not to pursue the stronger protections required to end the merry-go-round of legal challenges which risk paralysing the scheme and negating its intended deterrent."Former Home Secretary Ms Braverman had already savaged Mr Sunak’s latest proposals. He sacked her weeks ago after she was engulfed in a series of controversies.

Ms Braverman, in a statement in the Commons, said Mr Sunak's new law should contain legal provisions to ignore the European Convention on Human Rights and Britain's Human Rights Act or he faced "electoral oblivion".

Tory Right-winger Andrea Jenkyns backed Mr Jenrick’s decision and claimed it could be the “death knell” for Mr Sunak’s leadership.


Rumours were swirling at Westminster that more letters of no confidence in his leadership have been sent to Sir Graham Brady, chairman of the 1922 Committee of Backbench Conservative MPs.

In a sign of the open revolt among Tory parliamentarians, Lord Greenhalgh, a former London deputy mayor under Boris Johnson, tweeted: “Frankly, @RobertJenrick’s resignation as immigration minister is principled. Anyone who believes that the proposed @GOVUK immigration bill is too weak + won’t work should resign. @SuellaBraveman was forensic on this topic in her statement.”

Mr Sunak hit back in a letter to Mr Jenrick, describing his decision as “disappointing”, and telling him in a letter he fears it was “based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation”.

The Prime Minister also reportedly told Conservative backbenchers at the 1922 Committee shortly before Mr Jenrick's resignation became apparent that they must "unite or die".

Suella Braverman savaged Mr Sunak's plan earlier in the Commons (via REUTERS)

Mr Cleverly denied that Rwanda is getting cold feet due to the “toxic” deal.

His strong stance came after Labour MP Mike Kane said: “It’s been reported in the press that they are getting cold feet because this deal is too toxic for them, is that the case?”

In response, Mr Cleverly simply said “no”.

Pat McFadden MP, Labour’s National Campaign Coordinator, responding to the resignation, said:"This latest chaotic chapter demonstrates why the country is ready for change. And Keir Starmer’s changed Labour Party stands ready.

"The British people deserve a Government that will fix the issues that matter to working people, not a Tory circus of gimmicks and leadership posturing.

"Only Labour can deliver the change this country needs, on the cost of living, on bringing down energy bills and making work pay. It’s time we got Britain’s future back."

Robert Jenrick’s resignation creates a Tory crisis

Telegraph View
Wed, 6 December 2023 

Robert Jenrick leaving Downing Street with Rishi Sunak

The resignation of Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, over the new legislation intended to stop the cross-Channel migrant traffic confronts Rishi Sunak with a perilous few weeks in his premiership.

Mr Jenrick is a considered politician, not known for being on the Right of the Tory party. But he stepped down in protest at new legislation to curb illegal asylum seekers, which he said did not go far enough. Just hours earlier, Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, had delivered a devastating attack on Mr Sunak, three weeks after he sacked her from the Home Office.

She said the Conservatives were heading for “electoral oblivion” unless the Government gripped the small boats crisis, brought down legal immigration, expedited deportations, toughened jail sentences and cut crime.

Last night, the Government published its emergency legislation aimed at addressing the Supreme Court’s reasons for striking down the policy of sending migrants to Rwanda. It declares Rwanda to be a safe country, and forbids immigration officers from deciding otherwise. It also says ministers can ignore so-called Rule 39 blocking edicts from the European Court in Strasbourg, though it would still have a role.

Unusually, James Cleverly, the Home Secretary, stated that the Bill was not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, “but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill”. That is now the big challenge facing Mr Sunak, since he wants the measure through Parliament before Christmas.

However, he risks failing to satisfy either side. Mrs Braverman’s supporters said the Bill was flawed, because it still allowed individual judicial appeals against rejection. Another group of Tories, however, sees bypassing Britain’s human rights obligations as a “red line”. The One Nation group of MPs said it welcomed the Government’s decision to continue to meet the UK’s international commitments but would be taking legal advice about the Bill’s practicalities.

This has become a high-stakes political gamble for Mr Sunak, whose ability to manage the parliamentary party with so many MPs stepping down has become more difficult. Mrs Braverman said another anti-migration Bill that fails to achieve what is promised could be disastrous for the party and she would not “sit by and allow that to happen”. Is this the start of another Tory leadership crisis?

Robert Jenrick’s resignation letter in full as immigration minister quits over Rwanda plan

Barney Davis
Wed, 6 December 2023 

Robert Jenrick says he has strong disagreements with the government’s policy 

(AFP via Getty Images)

Robert Jenrick’s shock resignation has plunged Rishi Sunak’s leadership into further chaos after the prime minister failed to appease Tory right-wingers with his emergency Rwanda legislation.

Home Secretary James Cleverly unveiled a bill in the Commons to “disapply” the UK Human Rights Act in a bid to stop British judges blocking the deportation of asylum seekers.

But the Sunak government could not head off a major revolt by the right of the party after choosing not to opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Jenrick said the small boats crisis was doing “untold damage” to the country and the Government needed to place “national interests highly contested interpretations of international law”.

Below is his resignation letter in full:

“It is with great sadness that I have written to the Prime Minister to tender my resignation as Minister for Immigration. I cannot continue in my position when I have such strong disagreements with the direction of the Government’s policy on immigration.

“As you know, I have been pushing for the strongest possible piece of emergency legislation to ensure that under the Rwanda policy we remove as many small boat arrivals, as swiftly as possible to generate the greatest deterrent effect.

“This stems from my firmly held position that the small boats crisis is a national emergency that is doing untold damage to our country, and the only way we will be able to stop the boats completely is by urgently introducing a major new deterrent.

“I have therefore consistently advocated for a clear piece of legislation that severely limits the opportunities for domestic and foreign courts to block or undermine the effectiveness of the policy.

“One of the great advantages of our unwritten constitution is the unfettered power of our sovereign parliament to create law. and that is a power we must take full advantage of.

“The Government has a responsibility to place our vital national interests above highly contested interpretations of international law.

“In our discussions on the proposed emergency legislation you have moved towards my position, for which I am grateful.

“Nevertheless. I am unable to take the currently proposed legislation through the Commons as I do not believe it provides us with the best possible chance of success.

“A Bill of the kind you are proposing is a triumph of hope over experience. The stakes for the country are too high for us not to pursue the stronger protections required to end the merry-go-round of legal challenges which risk paralysing the scheme and negating its intended deterrent.

“Reflecting on my time in the Home Office, I am proud of the improvements we have delivered together working alongside dedicated and capable civil servants. I am grateful to you for agreeing to much of my five-point plan to reduce net migration which, once implemented, will deliver the single largest reduction in legal migration ever.

“However, I refuse to be yet another politician who makes promises on immigration to the British public but does not keep them.

“This package must be implemented immediately via an emergency rules change and accompanied by significant additional reforms at the start of next year to ensure we meet the 2019 manifesto commitment that every single Conservative MP was elected upon. The consequences for housing, public services, economic productivity, welfare reform, community cohesion and, more fundamentally, for trust in democratic politics are all too serious for this totemic issue to be anything other than a primary focus for the Government.

“Together we have also made progress tackling illegal migration. Small boats arrivals are down by more than a third compared to last year, against a forecast of a forty per cent increase and an almost one hundred per cent rise in Italy in the same period.

“The deal we negotiated with Albania has led to a more than ninety per cent reduction in Albanians arriving illegally on small boats and has demonstrated that a fully functioning scheme with Rwanda will act as a powerful deterrent. For the first time we have developed a comprehensive upstream strategy to disrupt the organised immigration crime gangs in important countries including Italy, Belgium, Bulgaria and Turkey.

“This has made the United Kingdom a partner of choice to those who share a determination to tackle illegal migration and has led to record numbers of small boat equipment seizures, preventing thousands more people making the illegal, unnecessary and dangerous crossing. At home we have relentlessly focussed on removing the pull factors the United Kingdom.

“We have increased raids on illegal working by seventy per cent and returns of immigration offenders by over fifty per cent, transformed the asylum case-working system with a ten-fold increase in weekly decisions to eliminate the legacy backlog, and began closing hundreds of the farcical asylum hotels. Behind the scenes we have also instilled greater rigour in scrutinising visa applications which will tackle the equally concerning rise in non-small boat asylum claims.

“However, we said that we would stop the boats altogether. That is what the public rightly demands and expects of us. We must truly mean that we will do whatever it takes’ to deliver this commitment when we say so. This emergency legislation is the last opportunity to prove this, but in its current drafting it does not go far enough.

“You and I have been friends for a long time. In cabinet I have seen up close your hard work, dedication and the deep sense of public service that drives you every day. Against strong headwinds you have stabilised the country, showed leadership on the world stage and done much to improve the lives of millions of citizens across the United Kingdom, for which you deserve much greater recognition.

“This is not a decision I have arrived at lightly, but one born of principle and reached after careful consideration and many months of trying to convince you of the merits of my position.

“You will retain my full support on the backbenches even as I campaign on illegal and legal migration policy and the intersecting challenges of generating meaningful economic growth, solving the housing crisis and improving integration. The fortunes of the Conservative Party at the next general election are at stake.

“It has been an honour to serve in government for five Conservative Prime Ministers. I will continue to represent the interests of my constituents in Newark to whom I owe so much.

“Yours ever,

“Robert”

UK Rwanda bill will be ‘immune’ to court challenge

Charles Hymas
Wed, 6 December 2023

Chris Philp, the policing minister, said the Rwanda bill would be unveiled ‘within days, not weeks’

Emergency laws to declare Rwanda safe for asylum seekers will be “immune” to court challenges, a Home Office minister has pledged.

Chris Philp, the policing minister, said the Government would do “whatever it takes” to ensure the Rwanda Bill was “completely watertight” and “immune” to being struck down by the courts.

The Bill was announced as part of the Government’s plans to get flights to Rwanda off the ground in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that the policy was unlawful.

It was due to be presented to Parliament on Wednesday after James Cleverly, the Home Secretary, on Tuesday signed a new asylum treaty with Rwanda designed to answer the criticisms by the Supreme Court.

However, it is unlikely to be published before Thursday amid wrangling within the Government over how tough the legislation should be. Mr Philp said it would be unveiled “within days, not weeks”.

‘Removing the right of judicial review’

Rishi Sunak is reportedly veering towards a compromise option where the Government would take powers to disapply the Human Rights Act (HRA) in asylum claims. This would force a claimant to take their case to Strasbourg, during which time its advocates hope the policy could be shown to have worked without hitches.

However, Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, is fighting a rearguard action for the toughest “full fat” version of the legislation, which would remove the right of judicial review and include “notwithstanding clauses” allowing ministers to ignore not only the HRA but also the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) on asylum.

The Telegraph understands that one compromise being considered by Number 10 to resolve the impasse would give ministers reserve powers in the legislation. These would allow them to ignore ECHR rulings if the courts attempted to block the Rwanda policy, but not stating that would automatically be the case. This would be in addition to powers to disapply the HRA.

‘Full fat approach’

Mr Philp refused to be drawn on which option the Government favoured but told LBC: “We are going to bring a bill shortly to make this completely watertight and immune from being struck down.

“We will do whatever is necessary to make sure this arrangement [the Rwanda policy] is legally watertight and cannot be unpicked. Parliament is sovereign. It’s what the public expects.”

The Prime Minister, who faces his weekly Commons’ question time at lunchtime, has to find a path between two factions in his party. The One Nation group of more than 100 centre-Left MPs on Tuesday issued a warning that “overriding” the ECHR would be a “red line”.

The “full fat” option is, however, demanded by three groups on the Right of the party: the New Conservatives, the European Research Group (ERG) and the Common Sense Group, led by Sir John Hayes, a close ally of Suella Braverman, the former home secretary.

MPs from the three have been meeting this week to discuss tactics if the Prime Minister steps back from the “full fat” approach. They are expected to lay amendments to implement the toughest option, which they believe is the only way to get the flights off to Rwanda.

‘Respect parliamentary sovereignty’

Mark Francois, the ERG chairman, said on Tuesday that the group’s reconvened “star chamber” of lawyers would scrutinise the legislation before MPs vote on it. “They will look at the question of whether it fully respects parliamentary sovereignty and whether it contains unambiguous wording that would facilitate planes taking off to Rwanda,” he said.

However, the former deputy prime minister Damian Green, chairman of the One Nation group, said on Tuesday: “The Government should think twice before overriding both the ECHR and Human Rights Act and not rush such long-term, difficult decisions.”

Mr Philp warned the House of Lords that whatever option was chosen, they should back the decisions of the “democratically elected chamber” and respect the public’s support for stopping the boats.

He said the Rwanda policy would deter migrants from making Channel crossings in small boats, in a similar way to the Australian Sovereign borders strategy of turning back migrant vessels and the fast-track deportation deal with Albania that had slashed the number of illegal migrants from the country by 90 per cent.

“Getting this deal active and effective will have a huge deterrent effect on stopping the illegal arrivals that we’re seeing across the English Channel. We’ve seen it work elsewhere,” he told Times Radio.

“What we’re looking for here really is a deterrent effect. So we’re not expecting to have to send an entire year’s worth of illegal arrivals before that deterrent effect will happen.”

Sunak faces right-wing Tory revolt on Rwanda as Cleverly signs controversial treaty


Adam Forrest and Kate Devlin
Tue, 5 December 2023

Home secretary James Cleverly has signed a new treaty with Rwanda in a bid to rescue Rishi Sunak’s thwarted deportation plan.

Emergency ‘plan B’ legislation is also planned soon, as Mr Sunak tries to assert that Rwanda is a safe country to send migrants following his government’s defeat at the Supreme Court.

Senior Tory right-winger are plotting a rebellion and are pushing the PM to opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) – warning he must go for the “full fat” version to get around judges.

The Independent understands the 35 MPs in the New Conservatives group will meet others on the right – including the Commons Sense Group and European Research Group – tonight to discuss whether to vote against Mr Sunak’s legislation if it is not tough enough.

But senior Tory moderates are also warning Mr Sunak they may not support his legislation if he does try to flout the ECHR – arguing that it would be “a mistake” that doesn’t have public support.

Both sides poses a real threat to Mr Sunak’s plans – since only around 25 to 30 Tory MPs would be needed to vote with the opposition to defeat his landmark legislation.

Mr Cleverly travelled to Kigali on Tuesday, as the PM attempts to make his plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda legally sound after the Supreme Court’s ruling against the policy.

Legal experts and charities believe the attempt to get flights started before the 2024 election will fail – with the government’s own lawyers said to be pessimistic about efforts to get around human rights law.

Mr Cleverly, who met his counterpart Vincent Biruta to sign the treaty, hopes the upgraded agreement, which gives it the status of international law, will address the problems that led the UK’s highest court to rule the “offshoring” deportation scheme unlawful.

But in Kigali, Mr Cleverly could not guarantee the first flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda will take off in the spring. as the government aims.

James Cleverly meets British High Commissioner to Rwanda, Omar Daair (PA)

The home secretary said: “We want to see this part of our wider migration plan up and running as quickly as possible. We feel very strongly this treaty addresses all of the issues of their lordships in the Supreme Court.”

He said he “could not see any credible reason” to question Rwanda’s track record, adding the planned new domestic legislation would come “soon”.

UK lawyers are to be sent to Rwanda to help process claims and ensure appeals are granted correctly. Ministers said the new treaty would ensure those relocated to Rwanda are not at risk of being sent back to countries they have fled – an act known as refoulement – including through a new appeal body.

An independent monitoring committee will assess the processing of asylum claims and the treatment and support for individuals for up to 5 years. It will also establish a new whistleblowing system to allow asylum seekers sent to Rwanda to lodge confidential complaints.

James Cleverly and Rwandan foreign minister Vincent Biruta (PA)

John Hayes MP, sacked home secretary Suella Braverman’s mentor, is demanding that the Tory leader opt out of the ECHR in its emergency Rwanda legislation.

“We need severe measures. It important to get those flights off to Rwanda – so we need to be really tough,” the leader of the Tories’ Commons Sense Group told The Independent.

Senior Tory Mark Francois, the ERG chief, also warned Mr Sunak that it could be “three strikes and you’re out” – urging the PM to to ignore the ECHR in the emergency Rwanda legislation.

Tory moderates in the ‘One Nation’ caucus – which boats around 100 MPs – have urged Mr Sunak to remain committed to both the ECHR and the UK Human Rights Act in the emergency Rwanda legislation.

Stephen Hammond, deputy chair, said moderate MPs would “struggle to support a so-called full-fat” option – warning that any attempt to flout the ECHR would be “a mistake and doesn’t have public support”.

Former minister Damian Green, chair of the One Nation group, said: “The government should think twice before overriding both the ECHR and HRA and not rush such long term, difficult decisions.” He said the group was studying the Rwanda treaty “extremely carefully”.

The Supreme Court ruling has a major impact on Rishi Sunak’s promise to ‘stop the boats’ (PA Wire)

Immigration minister Robert Jenrick claimed that he is confident Rwanda flights will take off before the general election – as he described illegal migrants as having “broken into” the UK.

The hardline cabinet minister said “it’s profoundly wrong” for people to be entering the UK illegally on small boats, telling Sky News: “If you or I crossed an international border, or literally broke into another country, we would expect to be treated very seriously.”

Senior civil servants at the Home Office are said to have warned No 10 that its Rwanda legislation is destined to fail. Government lawyers are reportedly refusing to sanction the most draconian version, that would opt out of the ECHR by using a “notwithstanding” clause to direct UK judges to ignore it in asylum cases.

Sacked home secretary Suella Braverman visisted Rwanda in April (PA Wire)

Enver Solomon of the Refugee Council said the treaty showed a “callous disregard for people who have fled unimaginable horrors” and will have a “devastating impact” on the mental health of people seeking asylum. He added: “It’s time for the government to admit that the Rwanda plan just isn’t the right way forward.”

The Freedom from Torture campaign group said the it was “shameful” to strike a new treaty. “No amount of tinkering will change the fundamental fact that this ‘cash for humans’ deal is immoral … it needs to be shelved once and for all,” they said.

The Law Society’s president Nick Emmerson said: “The suggestion of stationing British lawyers in Rwanda implies a lack of confidence in how cases would be handled there .... The government needs to admit the scheme is likely beyond repair.”

It comes as a new poll Redfield & Wilton Strategies found that more people who voted for the Tories in 2019 plan to support Reform UK than Labour. Some 15 per cent plan to ditch the Conservatives for the hard right party, while only 13 per cent will go to Labour, the survey found.

In a bid to cut record-high net migration, Mr Cleverly increased the salary threshold for foreign workers to £38,700. The measures announced on Monday also banned overseas social care staff from bringing dependants to the UK.

But Mr Jenrick said more measures may be required to bring down legal migration. “You’re right to say that more things may need to be done, but without question this is a big step forward,” he told GB News on Tuesday.

And in remarks which raise eyebrows at Westminster, the immigration minister also said there would be “merits” to introducing an annual, “Australia-style” cap on net migration – a move demanded by Ms Braverman.

How low can you go, Mr Sunak? PM tries immigration crackdown as his popularity plummets

Adam Forrest and Archie Mitchell
Tue, 5 December 2023

Rishi Sunak’s government has unveiled a crackdown on record-high net migration as he tries to wrest back control of his increasingly divided Conservative Party.

The measures, unveiled by home secretary James Cleverly, follow a series of polls which show the Tory leader’s popularity has plummeted to a record low and he is now faring even worse than Liz Truss with the electorate.

The latest ConservativeHome survey revealed Mr Sunak’s support among Tory grassroots plunged to -25 per cent, making him the least popular member of the cabinet.

In a bid to win back voters, Mr Cleverly increased the salary threshold for foreign workers from £26,200 to £38,700 as part of a package set to come into force in April.

Mr Cleverly also raised the threshold for people living here wanting to sponsor a family member to move to the UK – the person living in the UK must now earn £38,700, up from £18,600 currently.

He also banned overseas social care staff from bringing dependants to the UK and the rule allowing the most-needed professions to be hired at 20 per cent below the going rate would also be scrapped.

MPs on the Tory right urged the PM to implement even more severe measures to control numbers and ignore human rights law so Rwanda deportations can begin – warning that “nothing matters more” to voters than immigration.

But business leaders warned of major staffing crises in hospitality and social care ahead. Labour accused the Tories of “chaotic panic”, while union leaders claimed the PM was “playing roulette with essential services” to placate the right.

The fresh row came as Mr Cleverly announced:

A five-point plan to cut legal migration and a new target of 300,000 fewer migrants a year


Foreign care workers will no longer be able to bring their dependants to the UK


The minimum income for family visas was raised to the new salary threshold of £38,700


The shortage occupation list will be overhauled to end a 20 per cent salary discount


The graduate visa route – letting students stay for two years after their studies – is under review

Mr Cleverly declared “enough is enough” as he promised his plans would deliver “the biggest ever reduction in net migration” after levels soared to a record high of 745,000 in 2022 and sparked Tory outrage. He said the strategy would bring down annual levels by 300,000 in future years.

Mr Cleverly said the Tories would get rid of “cut-price” labour by stopping shortage occupations being able to pay 20 per cent less than the going rate, and restricting the number of jobs which are on the list.

Suella Braverman has led pressure on Rishi Sunak to cut migration numbers (AP)

Sacked home secretary Suella Braverman said the measures were “too late and the government can go further”. She called on Mr Sunak to cut the graduate visa route from two years, and bring in an overall “Australia-style” cap on annual net migration.

Mr Sunak and Mr Cleverly did not limit the total number of NHS and social care visas – a move immigration minister Robert Jenrick is believed to have been pushing for. Two sources said Ms Braverman and Mr Jenrick had also pushed for the salary threshold to go even higher – to £45,000.

Senior Tory John Hayes, Ms Braverman’s closest ally, told The Independent that “nothing matters more” than the immigration crackdown – both legal and illegal – if the party has any chance of winning next year’s general election.

Mr Hayes, leader of the Common Sense Group, said the new moves were “long overdue but incredibly welcome”, although he warned that Mr Sunak he would have to go further.

Mr Hayes is demanding that the Tory leader opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in its emergency Rwanda legislation. “We need severe measures. We need to be really tough,” he said.

Leading right-winger Simon Clarke, a former cabinet minister, claimed Tory voters had expressed a “desperation for bold action to deliver a fix”. The ex-minister said voters “will return if we deliver on illegal immigration”.

Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg challenged Mr Cleverly in the Commons to consider Ms Braverman’s idea of an “Australia-style” overall cap on net migration numbers. But the new home secretary said a cap would be “difficult” to manage.

Record-high migration has reopened the huge divides in the Tory party. Mr Jenrick said last week that he wanted to bring in his own plan “before last Christmas”, and suggested he was keen to consider an overall cap on net migration.

Immigration minister Robert Jenrick has pushed for a five-point plan to cut net migration (PA)

However, senior Tory Damian Green warned Mr Sunak and Mr Cleverly about the “huge shortage in the care sector”, warning that the ban on dependants could cause major problems.

The One Nation group leader said: “I would hope that this isn’t a significant contributor to the reduction in numbers, because if it is, it will cause damage to the care sector.” But Mr Cleverly denied that it would lead to a staff shortage.

Tory health committee chair Steve Brine has also warned against clamping down on care workers, arguing that they are “the people who look after your ailing parents and grandparents”.

Unison general secretary Christina McAnea accused Mr Sunak of “playing roulette with essential services just to placate its backbenchers and the far right”. She warned that some foreign workers already here will now leave.

“What do you think’s going to happen?” she told the BBC World at One programme. “To those who are already here, who do have dependents when they come to renew their visa, presumably they will be told you have to send your children back again.”

Prof Martin Green, chief executive of Care England, said immigration was “saving the social care sector” from collapse – arguing that 70,000 overseas workers were needed in the past year to fill gaps.

The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) said Mr Sunak “appears comfortable with tearing apart families to score political points”. And Miriam Deakin, director of policy at NHS Providers, said measures that deter foreign recruits were “deeply concerning”.

Rishi Sunak has vowed to crack down on both legal and illegal migration (PA Wire)

UKHospitality chief Kate Nicholls warned of a major staffing crisis in pubs, bars and restaurants – arguing the changes “will further shrink the talent pool” and “worsen the shortages hospitality businesses are facing”.

The industry leader warned that 95 per cent of the 8,500 hospitality visas issued last year would no longer be eligible under these plans.

Dr Madeleine Sumption, director of the Migration Observatory, said the move to raise the family visa income threshold to £38,700 would restrict some people “very significantly”.

She said the largest impact “will fall on lower-income citizens, and particularly women and younger people”. Reunite Familes UK, which helps migrants bring loved ones to Britain, said they were “beyond devastated” at the change.

It comes as a new JL Partners survey found that just 59 per cent of people who voted for the Tories in 2019 plan to vote Conservative at the next general election, down from 63 per cent following Ms Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget. It also revealed that one in six 2019 Tory voters have switched to Reform UK.

Separately, a BMG Research survey shows that Reform UK is now third on 11 per cent – its best performance in any poll by the firm. Pollster James Johnson said there was “only one option for the Conservatives now: go big on immigration or go home”.

Labour’s shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said Mr Sunak’s “chaotic panic” plan was “an admission of years of total failure by this Conservative government”.

Alistair Carmichael, the Lib Democrats’ home affairs spokesperson, said polling showed that confidence in Mr Sunak’s approach to immigration was “at an all-time low – yet they seem determined to keep pushing their damaging, divisive policies”.

The major overhaul comes as Mr Cleverly is in Rwanda to sign an updated agreement. But senior civil servants at the Home Office are said to have warned No 10 that its Rwanda legislation is destined to fail.

James Cleverly is set to visit Rwanda this week to sign an updated treaty (PA Wire)

Government lawyers are reportedly refusing to sanction the most draconian version of the legislation that would opt out of the ECHR by using a “notwithstanding” clause to direct UK judges to ignore it.

Leading Tory moderate Sir Robert Buckland warned that opting out of the ECHR would be “foolish and rash” and would endanger the Good Friday Agreement. The new chair of the Northern Ireland affairs committee told the BBC it would be “a very un-Conservative step”.

But senior Tory Mark Francois warned Mr Sunak that it could be “three strikes and you’re out” – urging the PM to to ignore the ECHR in the emergency Rwanda legislation.

The chair of the European Research Group (ERG) told GB News: “Rishi promised to stop the boats but ... he hasn’t has he? … We’ve had two goes before. Now it’s three strikes and you’re out”.

Archaeologists discover prehistoric ‘time capsule’ in mystery cave dwelling

Athena Stavrou
Wed, 6 December 2023 

Archaeologists have discovered a pre-historic cave-dwelling, thought to have been constructed 16,800 years ago (University of Cantabria)

Archaeologists have found a pre-historic cave-dwelling, thought to have been constructed 16,800 years ago.

The discovery was made in the La Garma caves in Cantabria, Spain, which is famed for its artwork previously found on its walls.

The University of Cantabria, whose prehistoric research team led the project, said it was “one of the best preserved Paleolithic dwellings in the world”.


The home is described as an oval space of about five square metres with stone blocks and structures of “sticks and skins”.

Researchers believe there was a small bonfire in the centre of the space, in which a multitude of daily tasks would have taken place.

The dwelling at the time of discovery (Government of Cantabria)

They believe a group of Magdalenian hunters and gatherers shared the space and they have documented 6,614 objects from the dwelling including deer, horse and bison bones as well as 600 pieces of flint, needles and shells of marine molluscs.

Among the discoveries was a decorated bone and several pendants that researchers believe dwellers wore as jewellery.

The research took two years of continuous work by an interdisciplinary team using innovative methodology such as non-invasive techniques such as 3D mapping, soil analysis, and radiocarbon dating.

The documentation of the habitat required two years of continuous work and a reproduction of the structure is soon to be installed as an exhibition in the Rock Art Centre in nearby Puente Viesgo.

The La Garma caves have long been a point of arcaological interest. Five levels of the cave complex have been discovered so far, which preserves evidence of human activity spanning over 300,000 years.

It has been described as a “time capsule” by the local government as the original entrance to the cave was blocked by a landslide around 16,000 years ago, preserving the ancient remains inside.

The UNESCO world heritage site also houses thousands of fossils and a collection of rock art dating as far back as 35,000 years ago.

UK
What is conversion 'therapy' and why do people want it banned?

CATCHING UP TO CANADA

Ross McGuinness
Updated Tue, 5 December 2023 

There have been sustained calls for conversion 'therapy' to be banned in the UK. (Alamy) (Vuk Valcic)

MPs are reportedly set to introduce a bill this week that would ban so-called conversion "therapy".

Backbench MPs have drafted legislation to outlaw the controversial practice after the government - which has previously committed to banning the practice - did not include it in its legislative agenda in the King's Speech last month.

ITV News said the private members' bill (bills introduced by MPs and Lords who are not government ministers) would be aimed at banning all forms of conversion therapy and will be tabled in the House of Commons on Wednesday.

It has been drafted by Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle and has the support of nine Conservative MPs, including Caroline Nokes, chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, and Alicia Kearns, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

The legislation will not be subjected to a vote until March 2024 at the earliest, ITV News said.
Recommended reading

Government accused of ‘frightful negligence’ over lack of conversion 'therapy' ban (PA Media)


Government kicks conversion 'therapy' ban down the road (The Conversation)


Government slammed for ‘total moral failure’ over ‘conversion therapy’ ban (Attitude)

"Some of the biggest social reforms in this country have happened via private members' bills," Russell-Moyle told ITV News.

"I was overwhelmed with support from all sides of the House for this reform.

"Too many have suffered for too long; we have a responsibility to ensure no one else must suffer from this practice."

Yahoo News UK examines the controversial practice and what the government has promised in the past.
What is conversion 'therapy'?

According to the British Psychological Society (BPS), so-called conversion "therapy" refers to "attempts to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, based on the assumption that being LGBT+ should be ‘cured’".

The practice isn't considered to be an actual "therapy" by health professionals.

A number of organisations, including the BPS, NHS England and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, have signed the 2017 Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy in the UK.

It reads: "Conversion therapy is the term for therapy that assumes certain sexual orientations or gender identities are inferior to others and seeks to change or suppress them on that basis.

"Conversion therapy in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation (including asexuality) is unethical, potentially harmful and is not supported by evidence."

The practice may include prayer, but in its most extreme forms also features physical violence, food deprivation and even exorcism.

Campaigners are frustrated with the government's failure to ban conversion 'therapy'. (PA) (Avpics)
When will conversion therapy be banned?

The bill to be tabled by MPs this week will not be voted on until next March, meaning any ban is some time away.

According to LGBTQ+ charity Stonewall, conversion "therapy" is already banned in countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Canada, France and New Zealand.
What has the UK government said about conversion 'therapy'?

A ban was first proposed by then prime minister Theresa May in 2018, before it was downgraded to not include transgender people by her successor, Boris Johnson.

Rishi Sunak’s government said in January it would ban conversion therapy for “everyone”, including transgender people.

Watch: Then prime minister Theresa May calls conversion 'therapy' an 'abhorrent practice'


However, despite being laid out in two Queen's speeches, the ban was dropped from last month's King's Speech, sparking a wave of criticism of the government, which said it needed more time to draft the appropriate legislation.

Commons leader Penny Mordaunt said last month: “Bringing an end to these practices is a manifesto commitment, it remains a manifesto commitment."

Downing Street has maintained that the practice is “abhorrent”, but said time is needed to work out a policy on the “complex” area in order to avoid unintended consequences.

Labour has pledged to introduce a “no loopholes” trans-inclusive ban on conversion therapy if it wins the next general election.

A proposal to ban conversion 'therapy' is set to go before the House of Commons. (PA) (Avpics)
What has been the reaction?

The government has been criticised for its failure to fulfil its pledge to ban conversion "therapy".

The Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Dame Sarah Mullally, said she was disappointed that legislation was not included in the King's Speech.

“The General Synod of the Church of England voted to call on the government to ban conversion therapies in 2017," she said.

"It remains firm that abuse of power in this way must be prevented.”

Speaking after the King's Speech, Robbie de Santos, director of external affairs at Stonewall, said: The UK government’s failure to deliver a ban on conversion practices after five years of promises is an act of frightful negligence – in doing so, it has given the green light for the abuse against LGBTQ+ people to continue unchecked."

NHS Providers said it was “deeply concerned by the omission of a ban on conversion therapy”.

The Royal College of Nursing's chief nurse, Professor Nicola Ranger, said: “It’s been five wasted years of hollow promises to ban these abhorrent practices that nursing staff know have no medical basis.”

CAPPLETALI$M
Apple regains its $3 trillion valuation despite analysts doubts

MORE FUCKING MONEY THEN MOST COUNTRIES

William Gallagher
Wed, 6 December 2023


Apple is the most valuable publicly traded company in the US, and its valuation has again exceeded $3 trillion, even as financial analysts have been concerned about sales for the iPhone 15 range.

In January 2022, Apple became the first company to reach a $3 trillion market capitalization, but then that market cap figure steadily decrease over the next year.

That decrease brought Apple back under $3 trillion, but it happened chiefly because of what were described as investor jitters.

This pattern repeated itself in June 2023, as Apple's valuation went back up over $3 trillion -- only to again fall steadily immediately afterwards.

June was when Apple announced its forthcoming Apple Vision Pro, and since then it has also launched the iPhone 15 range. But while investment analysts have been mixed in their advice about Apple, there have been issues over the iPhone 15 not selling as well as the iPhone 14, especially in China.

On December 5, Apple share price rose 2% to $193.42 per share. The trend continues on Wednesday morning, with the stock inching up in pre-market trading.

It's not clear how long it will retain that valuation, however. Apple routinely buys back stock, and Apple has already said that it does not expect annual revenue growth for its December quarter. This is the first full quarter where the iPhone 15 range was available, but could now be the fifth quarter in a row where Apple has seen declining sales.

The climate change we caused is here for at least 50,000 years – and probably far longer



Jan Zalasiewicz, Professor of Palaeobiology, 

Mark Williams, Professor of Palaeobiology, 

Colin Waters, Honorary Professor, Department of Geology, 

Jens Zinke, Professor of Palaeobiology,

 University of Leicester

Tue, 5 December 2023 
THE CONVERSATION 

In February 2000, Paul Crutzen rose to speak at the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme in Mexico. And when he spoke, people took notice. He was then one of the world’s most cited scientists, a Nobel laureate working on huge-scale problems – the ozone hole, the effects of a nuclear winter.

So little wonder that a word he improvised took hold and spread widely: this was the Anthropocene, a proposed new geological epoch, representing an Earth transformed by the effects of industrialised humanity.

The idea of an entirely new and human-created geological epoch is a sobering scenario as context for the current UN climate summit, COP28. The impact of decisions made at these and other similar conferences will be felt not just beyond our own lives and those of our children, but perhaps beyond the life of human society as we know it.

The Anthropocene is now in wide currency, but when Crutzen first spoke this was still a novel suggestion. In support of his new brain-child, Crutzen cited many planetary symptoms: enormous deforestation, the mushrooming of dams across the world’s large rivers, overfishing, a planet’s nitrogen cycle overwhelmed by fertiliser use, the rapid rise in greenhouse gases.

As for climate change itself, well, the warning bells were ringing, certainly. Global mean surface temperatures had risen by about half a degree since the mid-20th century. But, they were still within the norm for an interglacial phase of the ice ages. Among many emerging problems, climate seemed one for the future.

Heat danger sign, desert background

A little more than two decades on, the future has arrived. By 2022, global temperature had climbed another half a degree, the past nine years being the hottest since records began. And 2023 has seen climate records being not just broken, but smashed.

By September there had already been 38 days when global average temperatures exceeded pre-industrial ones by 1.5°C, the safe limit of warming set by the UN Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in the Paris agreement. In previous years that was rare, and before 2000 this milestone had never been recorded.

With this leap in temperatures came record-breaking heatwaves, wildfires and floods, exacerbated by other local human actions. Climate has moved centre stage on an Anthropocene Earth.

Why this surge in temperatures? In part, it’s been the inexorable rise in greenhouse gases, as fossil fuels continue to dominate human energy use. When Crutzen spoke in Mexico, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were about 370 parts per million (ppm), already up from the pre-industrial 280 ppm. They’re now around 420 ppm, and climbing by some 2 ppm per year.

In part, the warming results from cleaner skies in the past few years, both on land and at sea, thanks to new regulations phasing out old power stations and dirty sulphur-rich fuels. As the industrial haze clears, more of the sun’s energy makes it through the atmosphere and onto land, and the full force of global warming kicks in.

In part, our planet’s heat-reflecting mirrors are shrinking, as sea ice melts away, initially in the Arctic, and in the last two years, precipitously, around Antarctica too. And climate feedbacks seem to be taking effect, too. A new, sharp rise in atmospheric methane – a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide – since 2006 seems to be sourced from an increase in rotting vegetation in tropical wetlands in a warming world.

https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/aerial-view-coal-power-plant-high-2136951757

This latest warming step has already taken the Earth into levels of climate warmth not experienced for some 120,000 years, into those of the last interglacial phase, a little warmer than the current one. There is yet more warming in the pipeline over coming centuries, as various feedbacks take effect.

A recent study on the effects of this warming on Antarctica’s ice suggests that “policymakers should be prepared for several metres of sea-level rise over the coming centuries” as the pulse of warmth spreads through the oceans to undermine the great polar ice-sheets.

This remains the case even in the most optimistic scenario where carbon dioxide emissions are reduced quickly. But emissions continue to rise steeply, to deepen the climate impact.

Controls have been overridden

To see how this might play out on a geological timescale, we need to look through the lens of the Anthropocene. A delicately balanced planetary machinery of regular, multi-millennial variations in the Earth’s spin and orbit has tightly controlled patterns of warm and cold for millions of years.

Now, suddenly, this control machinery has been overridden by a trillion tons of carbon dioxide injected into the atmosphere in little more than a century.

Modelling the effects of this pulse through the Earth System shows that this new, suddenly disrupted, climate pattern is here for at least 50,000 years and probably far longer. It’s a large part of the way our planet has changed fundamentally and irreversibly, to become comparable to some of the great climate change events in deep Earth history.

So will this particular COP meeting, with fossil fuel interests so strongly represented, make a difference? The bottom line is that attaining, and stabilising carbon emissions at “net zero” is only a crucial first step.

To retrieve the kind of climate optimal for humanity, and for life as a whole to thrive, negative emissions are needed, to take carbon out of the atmosphere and ocean system and put it back underground. For future generations, there is much at stake.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Jens Zinke receives funding for his general research from the Royal Society, NERC and the German DFG.

Colin Waters, Jan Zalasiewicz, and Mark Williams do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.