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?

Government is responsible for its citizens. Christ knows this particular government doesn't do much but preventing citizens being killed is a pretty low bar to reach.

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

One of the purposes of any embassy is to to offer help to their citizens - the role absolutely does include supporting tourists and visitors.

www.gov.uk/guidance/consular-assistance-how-the-foreign-commonwealth-development-office-provides-support#:~:text=The%20Foreign%2C%20Commonwealth%20%26%20Development%20Office%20(FCDO)%20and%20UK,have%20been%20hospitalised%20or%20arrested.

Was he on the lunchtime Scottish news by any chance?

OP this will cost a drop in the ocean compared to what other stuff the government piss our money up the wall on. It’s morally right and shows we protect our citizens

the defence of its citizens is the single biggest responsibility of a government -

if they reasonably can reach them they need to do it

Anyway we all know what is going to happen. The media is going to make a huge hoo ha about all the British citizens stuck there and our government will be forced to do more, but it will be so late as usual, and therefore will cost far more than it should have. And all these people will have suffered even more etc and end up back home traumatised.
It is always the same story of inaction and sitting around until the house is truly on fire.

@KnittedCardi

*. 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.*

Yep...I must admit a part of me wonders if HMG is taking this position because it doesn't want to get involved in a re-run of what went on during the evacuation of Kabul, most particularly a repeat of all the controversy over who/what should have been given priority on aircraft.

They might have hoped to stop any such debate by a quick extraction of diplomatic staff plus dependents only, full stop.

I was wondering why there are so many compared to other European countries? If it is really 6000 why is that? The French have almost finished and nobody seems to be protesting about people being left behind, it'll be finished by tonight, but why so many more British people? A colonial hangover?

It was a British colony until 1956 and its second official language (after Arabic) is English. So not overly surprising that people have familial and business ties from the UK.

Yes, including drug smuggling, I believe. At least to assist with sourcing legal representation etc.

You are still a citizen if accused of a crime overseas.

If they didn't provide support because a citizen had been accused of a crime, dictatorial and autocratic regimes could imprison whoever they liked simply by accusing them of crimes they didn't commit (i.e. where those people are currently always accused of "espionage" - just change it to drug smuggling and voila, the UK government will just leave you to it!).

So I would really hope the support didn't depend on the crime.

Exactly @Augend23

Why not their employers or their personal insurance, or themselves?

In the first instance, that is who would be responsible. And that's why we have travel advice (eg 'don't go unless essential' escalating to 'avoid in all circumstances') and consular alerts ('leave unless essential to stay' and 'everyone leave')

But there comes a point, and it may come suddenly, when it is no longer possible to arrange a journey out (airlines cancel flights, roads unsafe). That is when the remaining qualifying nationals will be helped out by their own or an allied government.

The difficulties arise when people don't follow the advice and get out whilst they still can, or who don't check the travel advice or register to receive the alerts. So it may not be possible for officialdom to know how many of their nationals are in country, or where they are. Plus what the country's attitude to dual nationality is.

But the general stance is that the government looks after their nationals, wherever they are, to the best extent they can. Which doesn't mean they can wave a magic wand and make everything OK, but should mean that people are treated fairly in accordance with the laws of whichever country and assisted when there's a crisis. Whether that's war, terrorist criminal atrocity or natural disaster.

“Why not their employers or their personal insurance, or themselves? “

And a pp has said similar, but a company or an insurer with a few people in the country can’t sort out an RAF plane or an armed road convoy, if that’s what it takes when all commercial travel is suspended.

I was evacuated by the British Consulate from sudden civil unrest in South East Asia about 25 years ago - I had to pay for the cost of the short, one way flight to a neighbouring country.

The country hasn't been unstable for 50 years; not to the extent that it was unsafe for foreigners.

I went there on holiday about a decade ago and it was a very safe place to travel.

Even with the current conflicts, Khartoum would have been considered safe. Presumably, Foreign Office advice has only changed very recently.

This isn't the preserve of the British government. I think you'll find that the governments of most countries will advise their citizens to leave another country if the situation becomes too dangerous to stay; and will do their best to evacuate them if they can.

Yes is the short answer. If it were Cote D’Ivoire there would be more French than British stuck.

Brexit .......

other countries are taking all EU citizens,

normal channels are down, no insurance company, employer, commercial airline etc can reach these people, hence it becomes the governments job.

The situation in Sudan has looked dodgy for a few months now, but I think part of the issue is that until recently, some people in Khartoum felt somewhat protected from what was going on in the country. Hemedti not only doesn't give a shit about keeping the elite onside but seems to actively enjoy them losing their privileged status. He's an outsider himself, that's part of his identity and schtick.

Because it’s the morally right thing to do.

Posters keep saying that there's a contract ,it's totally expected that the gov will help it's nationals at a time like this etc
But with all embassy staff and families evacuated that contract is pretty meaningless isn't it ?
Not to say that I don't understand that as an employer the gov had a responsibility to get staff out .Nor that I'm dismissing the hostage potential .Though I guess there's plenty of potential left amongst the pool of Britains still there .

’Why do British nationals expect to be evacuated from places like Sudan? By the British government?’

It’s one of the most basic duties of the state to aid its citizens in returning home.

This government have been too busy fucking with the civil service to allow them to get on with their jobs. Leaving Afghanistan was a cluster fuck and they knew that was coming.

There is, and I think that's a big part of the reason why states so often try and get their nationals out of these situations even when said nationals have been exceptionally fucking stupid. Nobody wants hostage situations.