ANNUAL migration will be HALVED and then cut every year, Rishi Sunak vowed today in a major election pledge.
But he risks angering Tory hardliners by stopping short of a promise to quit the European Court of Human Rights to ensure Rwanda flights go.
GettyRishi Sunak speaking at Silverstone racetrack to launch his manifesto[/caption]
Plans to curb both legal and illegal immigration were front and centre of the PM’s make-or-break manifesto launch at Silverstone racetrack this morning.
Committing to a binding cap on yearly arrivals, Mr Sunak said: “We will halve migration as we have halved inflation and then slash it every single year.”
Mr Sunak’s manifesto includes pledges to
CUT National Insurance by a further 2p by 2027, taking the main rate to 6 per cent
ABOLISH National Insurance entirely for self-employed workers by 2029
PROTECT pensioners from ever paying income tax with a new Triple Lock Plus
GIVE working parents 30 hours a week free childcare by September next year
CREATE a mandatory new form of national service for 18-year-olds
IMPOSE a ban on any new green levies that makes Brits pay for Net Zero
BAN mobile phones in classrooms as well as clamping down on sex education
BOOSTING defence spending to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2030
SLAP an annual cap on legal migration while pledging immediate Rwanda flights
CUT stamp duty on houses for first time buyers up to £425,000
Mr Sunak insisted a package of measures implemented earlier this year would have meant the 685,000 net arrivals who came in 2023 would have been reduced by 300,000.
A further “immigration lock” would see Parliament vote on a hard limit for arrivals with a remit to get numbers falling every year.
It marks an attempt to neutralise the threat from Nigel Farage’s Reform insurgents, as well as Sir Keir Starmer who has vowed to cut arrivals.
But Tory right-wingers risk booting off after Mr Sunak omitted a pledge to leave the ECHR which many blame for scuppering efforts to stop small boats.
The PM said he would walk away from Strasbourg’s jurisdiction if that is what it takes to control Britain’s borders.
The ECHR has been a lightning rod for much of the anger over Britain’s inability to suitably control illegal migration.
The first deportation flight due for Rwanda was famously scuppered by an anonymous Strasbourg judge in the dead of night while the plane was on the tarmac.
Mr Sunak has since vowed to ignore these so-called “pyjama injunctions” if that is what it takes to start removals to Kigali.
What is the ECHR and who are its critics?
What is the European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights has jurisdiction in the 46 countries that are subscribed to the European Convention of Human Rights.
Based in Strasbourg, its judges rule on possible breaches of the 16 Articles that make up the Convention.
It emerged from the Second World War and has been in place since 1953 where Britain was a founding member.
The court is entirely separate from the European Union meaning the UK is still bound by its rulings.
Large sections of the Convention are enshrined in UK law via the 1998 Human Rights Act.
Why do critics want to leave it?
In recent years there have been growing calls to leave the ECHR, which critics accuse of becoming increasingly political.
This culminated in 2022, when an anonymous judge ordered the British government to abort its first Rwanda flight while the plane was on the runway.
Fears of overreach also boiled over last week when Strasbourg ruled against the Swiss Government for not doing enough to stop climate change.
Proponents of the ECHR say leaving would put Britain in the same club as Russia and Belarus as the continent’s only non-members.
But critics like Liz Truss hit back that many countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia have good human rights without needing a third party court.
What has Rishi Sunak said?
Rishi Sunak has said he would be prepared to quit the ECHR if that is what it takes to stop the boats.
He told our Never Mind The Ballots show: “I believe that border security and controlling illegal migration is more important than our membership of any foreign court.”
Separately, the Rwanda Bill gives ministers the powers to ignore the so-called “Pyjama Injunctions” which lets judges cast down eleventh-hour vetos in the dead of night