Why do British nationals expect to be evacuated from places like Sudan ?

[QuickGuide]

By the British government?

Those who are there at the request of/working for the British government, of course you'd expect them to be looked after, but people who've gone for their own reasons, tourism or private work, surely the risks of going to an unstable region are considered before you go? People went, presumably, for some sort of personal gain, why is it the government's (taxpayer's) job to reduce them? Why not their employers or their personal insurance, or themselves?

I'm obviously wrong, as it's so accepted that government should, but why?

I agree op. Sudan has been on the "only travel if necessary" list for years, most my life I expect! Yet people choose to visit, even study there. If you enter a country with a safety advisory surely it's at your own risk

France Germany, Italy and Spain have removed around 1000 people via a air shuttle system out of Ethiopia & are continuing to do so.

The UK has removed 30 via a very complex military op and aren't rescuing any more.

Can't quite believe a PP's colleague would go there on holiday. It's like popping to Somalia or something. What is even there that would warrant a holiday?

If there was a coup but then the PM was restored, they may have thought "this is our first opportunity in ages" but you do have to wonder...

Interesting discussion on Jeremy Vine radio two at the moment. So far fairly damning for the Foreign Office.

At a guess? Family.

Because they hold a British Passport (and British citizenship).

The passport facilitates access to consular assistance from British Embassies around the world. It contains the words

"“Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State requests and requires in the name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.”

We pay for military services to protect us; not just in UK.

The passport facilitates access to consular assistance from British Embassies around the world.

Talk to many British passport holders living abroad (either long term or short term) and they'll generally tell tales of how that assistance has become more and more limited..

As just one example rightly or wrongly most embassies/consulate don't even deal or even assist with the basics such as UK passport renewals these days.

Quite apart from the fact that the British government have a repsonsibility to provide aid and assistance to their citizens abroad under international law (just as other countries do) it is not about who pays for it. Oddly airlines really don't care whether the employer or the travel insurers are willing to pay for the flights. What they care about is that their bloody planes only end up on the ground when they deliberately land them (and they'd like to take off again too). So flying into a war zone requires the efforts of the British government to arrange appropriate status and facilities for that to happen without them being blown out of the sky. Many other countries have plans in place for both natural and man-made disasters. In Britain we seem to need to hold a committee meeting to decide what to do every single bloody time. Had we been better prepared and acted as soon as we knew that the situation was serious (which would have been around 15th / 16th April, certainly before 19th / 20th) then we would have alreaday got everyone who wants to leave out already.

I think the simple answer is that any foreign national caught up in the conflict and used as leverage = hostage....

🤦‍♀️ should read CAN be used...

I'm not sure but there does seem to be an obligation on powerful governments to save their citizens. In any case, it has prompted me to apply for my two children's British passports, they have their dads countries passports but I hadn't gotten round to getting their British ones.

You say the tax payer but we're a society and we all pay into that society and so you expect to be owed something back otherwise why would you contribute?
Otherwise if society owes me nothing I owe society nothing.

It's a case of scale. The entire EU combined took out a few hundred inc. some Brits. We have a few thousand to evacuate, the US has over ten thousand. It's easy if you are airing a handful, not so easy when you are looking at thousands.

It's not a few hundred, France took out nearly 400 by itself, the figure now is closer to 1000. But it may have stopped, the French embassy has now closed.

FWIW in terms of scale the "EU"are up to a thousand plus evacuated, supposedly diplomatic staff plus dependents then pretty much anyone with suitable documentation who can make it to the relevant airport(s).

TBF to HMG it sounds as if the States has taken a similar line and is only directly facilitating the evacuation of their diplomats plus dependents.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/23/europe/france-evacuates-citizens-sudan-hnk-intl/index.html

You surely don’t expect anybody nowadays to take any responsibility for their actions.
It’s the 21st century.

If the government didn’t officially advise against travelling to Sudan then it is their duty to get people out. Embassy staff are meant to be there to protect citizens and help them out in a crisis!

If other countries with similar political stability and power/financial resources are helping their citizens get out, then so should we. If we don’t, we are adding to the sinking ship reputation we already have!

Indeed. And as a the pp, France took out 400, but on a country by country case that's only 1 or two, or three or four plane loads per country of the EU.

With 6000 to get out that's 50 odd plane loads for UK on it's own.

Because the government needs people to have a sense of loyalty and patriotism and they won't get that if they can't demonstrate any loyalty to the people.
Because it makes us look civilized and respectable to the rest of the world.

Embassy staff are meant to be there to protect citizens and help them out in a crisis!

The British Embassy is there to represent the British Government, not look after tourists and visitors.

Obviously the British government should do what ever is safely possible to help citizens abroad, but they can't be expected to wave a magic wand to rescue people who have chosen to visit a highly unstable country.

True, they just rescued a group of young men who thought it would be amazing to go up the mountain in Snowdonia and then eat a bunch of hallucinogenic mushrooms.

Business people, weddings, family ties...marriage, visiting a dying relative?

Anyway, until very recently, travel to Sudan was NOT advised against.

Those saying employers should sort it out - on Radio 4 this morning they were saying some Turkish people had had their muster points shot to pieces.

They were advising UK nationals not to move, and to stay indoors (presumably at their own risk) but then also that they knew "inventive and resourceful" UK civilians might decide to leave (which they stated was definitely at their own risk).

It was, frankly, a very muddled picture but the UK government definitely wasn't recommending that UK employers should be arranging for their employees to meet at muster points (see "shot up" Turkish muster points above), and remaining in an active war zone forever clearly also isn't a solution.

Absolutely This ^^