Sunak won an important vote. But the battle over his Rwanda plan is not over yet.

Britain’s Prime Minister Rishi Sunak survived a major challenge to his leadership on Tuesday, advancing his flagship immigration policy over the objections of far-right factions in his Conservative Party. But the victory could be fleeting as he faces more hurdles with the plan, which would deport asylum seekers to Rwanda.

While some conservative lawmakers abstained or voted against the policy, the party’s 56-seat majority allowed the policy to pass by a vote of 313 to 269.

That will have come as a relief to Mr Sunak, who has bet his political fortunes on the ambitious, some say impossible, goal of stopping the arrival of migrants on small boats across the English Channel. A defeat would have plunged him into crisis and even led to a leadership challenge.

Yet the volatile nature of the vote sent an ominous message about Sunak’s hold on his party on the eve of an election season. The Rwandan legislation now moves to the House of Lords, the unelected upper chamber of parliament, where it is likely to be greeted with hostility by members, many of whom have sharply criticized the government’s heavy-handed approach.

It will then be voted on again in the House of Commons, where right-wing lawmakers who approved the bill on Tuesday have vowed to demand amendments to make the bill even more draconian.

Beyond the legislative maneuvering, a treacherous political landscape lies ahead for Mr Sunak. He has chosen to make stopping the flow of asylum seekers – some of whom end up in rickety boats after dangerous sea crossings – a cornerstone of his party’s campaign to stay in power after 13 years.

But his plan to deter migrants by threatening to send them to a small African country has become totemic, both for critics who condemn the country as abusive and inhumane and for far-right Conservatives who see it as part of the Brexit promise to regain control of the country. The borders of Great Britain. The latest version of the plan, which the government has drawn up acknowledges comes close to breaking international law, has divided the Tories and revived memories of polarizing debates over leaving the European Union.

Adding to the tense atmosphere on Tuesday, news emerged that a migrant had died aboard the Bibby Stockholm, a ship docked off the coast of Dorset, south-west England, used to house asylum seekers. The Times of London quotes Richard Drax, MP for South Dorset: reported that the death was a case of suicide.

Critics note that even if Rwanda’s legislation survives all future political and legal challenges, it is unlikely that large numbers of asylum seekers will ever be put on single flights to the African country. And the administration’s singular focus on this issue has diverted attention from other issues important to voters, such as tackling the cost of living or improving the country’s struggling health care system.

Mr Sunak found himself in this predicament after the UK Supreme Court rejected the original Rwanda policy as breaching domestic and international human rights law. The government then negotiated a treaty with Rwanda, declaring the country a “safe” destination for asylum seekers, and revised legislation to override the ability of courts to invalidate the law or block asylum transfers.

Mr Sunak’s immediate challenge lies with the House of Lords, which will scrutinize the legislation, adopt his own amendments and send them back to the House of Commons. The House of Commons will most likely reverse these amendments and send them back to the Lords – a process colloquially known as Ping-Pong.

“We’re not the kind of people who like to filibuster at night,” said David Anderson, a lawyer and member of the House of Lords who is not affiliated with any political party. “We act based on our wisdom and common sense, not as rioters. But we can significantly extend the time it takes for the government to get its bill through – and as a last resort, we can block it.”

Mr Anderson added: “I believe this bill is undoubtedly inconsistent with our international obligations.”

Because the bill was in its early parliamentary stages, some right-wing lawmakers gambled that it could be amended later. Iain Duncan Smith, a former leader of the Conservative Party and a leading figure on the right, said he would support the legislation, adding that while there were “flaws” in the bill, discussions would take place at a later stage can take place to decide “where it needs to be tightened.”

“If we stop now, we will start all over again and lose even more public confidence,” said Mr Duncan Smith wrote on social media.

In lobbying rebel lawmakers, Downing Street promised to listen to the concerns of the conservative right, even though Mr Sunak has said legislation cannot be tightened without breaking international law.

That message seemed to have shifted somewhat when he met with some rebels over breakfast on Tuesday. Mr Sunak is said to have hinted that he could make further concessions, but gave no concrete details. It remained unclear whether future changes to the draft were possible or whether he was considering making vaguer, less binding oral statements to his critics in parliament.

Mr Sunak knows that offering more to right-wing parties would anger centrist lawmakers in his party. They have made it clear that they will accept the bill as drafted, but not if it is hardened.

Legally, Mr Sunak has little room to manoeuvre. Preventing individual appeals from those facing deportation – as many on the right would like – would be contrary to international law and could push the Rwandan government to abandon this policy, according to the summary of its legal position by the British government.

Refusing all professions would mean that those who are unable to fly, for example those in the late stages of pregnancy, or those suffering from very rare medical conditions that cannot be cared for in Rwanda, could be removed without the right to legal action. strict supervision.”

“Totally block legal proceedings would be a breach of international law and alien to the British constitutional tradition of freedom and justice,” the document said, adding: “Even in wartime, Britain has retained access to the courts so that individuals can obtain their can enforce rights. their rights and freedoms.”

This underlined the extent to which Mr Sunak is caught in a political double bind. While right-wing parties want the government to move forward, his bill is likely to face opposing pressure from centrists and in the House of Lords.

“Do I see a way for it to get through? Yes, I will,” says Philip Cowley, professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, “but it will be very messy and noisy and could easily collapse in several phases.”

“The problem for the right of the party is that I don’t see how they can get this bill stronger or tougher at a later stage,” he added. “I can see how it is being weakened, but it is very difficult to see how it is being made stronger.”