The government-planned flight to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was canceled with minutes to spare on Tuesday night after an intervention by the European Court of Human Rights.
Under the asylum plan, asylum seekers arriving through the channel will be sent on a one-way flight to the African country to apply for asylum there.
But where does the last-minute setback leave the parties politically? Here are the positions of the different parties on the controversial policy.
Priti Patel in the House of Commons pledged on Wednesday to go ahead with the policy, telling MPs: “While this decision by the Strasbourg court to intervene was disappointing and surprising given the repeated and contrary judgments in our courts nationals, we remain committed to this policy.
She said the government was still “in full compliance with our national and international obligations” despite the UN refugee agency saying the policy clearly violated the 1951 refugee convention.
Speaking on Tuesday, Boris Johnson explained his rationale for connoting planned moves.
“We always said this was going to be a long process. When I first announced the policy, I said it would take a long time to get going, there would be a lot of legal challenges, there would be bumps in the road,” he said. she said.
“I think what opponents of the policy have to say is ‘what is your alternative’ to people being sent through the canal in very fragile and unseaworthy boats, risking their lives and undermining the rule of law?” ?”
He claimed that the policy would “undermine” the “business case” of the traffickers who were helping people cross the canal.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, called the plan “disorderly” and “disgraceful” in the House of Commons on Wednesday.
“She knows there is a lack of adequate asylum capacity in Rwanda to make fair decisions,” said Ms Cooper.
“Politics will not work. We need measures to confront the dangerous criminal gangs that put lives at risk, but she knows her policies will not do that.”
He said the interior minister should be “working day and night to get a better joint plan with France to crack down on gangs and prevent boats from being thrown into the water in the first place.”
His comments follow Keir Starmer last week calling the Rwanda plan a “chaotic diversion”.
But reading between the lines, most of Labour’s specific criticism of the policy seems to be based on its high cost and apparent low effectiveness.
Pressed on Wednesday on whether Labor in government would end the policy, a spokesman for Sir Keir told reporters: “We will present our immigration policy in full before the next election. We have made our positions clear on this issue.
“What we have said is that the policy, as has been seen, is not giving the results that the government says it would.”
Asked if the policy was “morally correct”, the spokesman said: “We’re going to wait and see how long this policy really lasts because we don’t know yet where we’re going to find ourselves with it.”
On Tuesday night, when the transfer flight was cancelled, SNP Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon expressed her “thanks and respect to those who worked tirelessly to ground this inhumane deportation attempt tonight.”
The Scottish Government leader called the approach “inexcusable” and said people should “prepare to withstand the Conservatives’ all-out assault on the ECHR which is surely to come”.
Alyn Smith, SNP foreign affairs spokeswoman, said in April that the policy was “horrible”.
“A cursory look at President Kagame’s record makes it clear that ‘Global Britain’ is once again evading its responsibility to help those fleeing conflict and violence,” the Stirling MP said in a statement.
“Political repression, unjustified arrests and political assassinations are the norm for the Kagame government, and the UK has given it a blank check to maintain its authoritarianism.
“It is frankly shameful that a policy lacking in meaning and humanity is being paraded as an example of good governance by a Home Secretary out of her league.”
He added: “Refugees must be helped, not moved to an unknown country thousands of miles away.
“The UK government has made a living from this policy, which will make it more difficult to hold the Kagame government to account for human rights abuses.
“Scotland wants no part of this immoral and impractical policy.”
Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said in April that the layoff policy was a “cynical distraction” from partygate. His party says safe routes must be provided for people to come to the UK.
“First of all, this policy just won’t work; clearly, obviously it won’t work. It won’t stop people from getting on board illegal smugglers’ boats,” he said last month.
“They have not provided evidence to suggest that this new policy will stop illegal smuggling, they are not cracking down on organized crime gangs, which is what it should do.”
When the plans were first discussed, Sir Ed’s group called them “dystopian” and said they should be scrapped.
Home Affairs spokesman Alistair Carmichael described the policy as “an appalling and inhumane way of treating some of the world’s most vulnerable people”.
“Treating refuge seekers as criminals is wrong and will only strengthen the position of human smugglers and human traffickers who prey on desperate people trying to cross the Channel,” he said.
“The best way to tackle these criminal gangs and stop dangerous boat crossings is to provide safe and legal routes for refugees to reach the UK, something the Home Office is not doing at all. That should be his focus, not these dystopian proposals.”
Carla Denyer, leader of the Green Party for England and Wales, said the policy was “inhumane” and “is yet another sign that the UK government is becoming an authoritarian regime that seems indifferent to whether or not it stays within the rule of law”. At national and international level”.
Ms Denyer said: “It is appalling that Boris Johnson would praise such a cruel proposal, which could very well break international law as well as be costly and ineffective, simply as a way of appeasing Conservatives and diverting attention from his own criminality. .
“The decision to send those seeking refuge to Rwanda, a country with a terrible human rights record, appears to be nothing more than an unspeakably cruel attempt to distract people from the Prime Minister’s law-breaking and the lies he surround the party.
“Sacrificing innocent bystanders to defend the leader is a typical technique of authoritarian regimes. Ministers, spokespersons and civil servants have been sacrificed and now the most vulnerable asylum seekers are added to the list. That in itself shows that the Tories are not fit to govern.”