I know, why don't we send them all to Rwanda?

[Weighnow]

Does anyone else think this sounds like a suggestion someone made as a joke, to liven up a dull or fraught meeting and somehow, someone decided to run with it?

Then there’s the problem of it being illegal even if the bill did pass and being instructed to is not an excuse for pilots to break the law. So you’d have to find a pilot willing to break the law to fly the plane.

Although since Rwanda have only agreed to take 200 as part of an exchange you’d probably only need to find 1 pilot and co-pilot.

I mean. This is getting a bit like selling people now isn't it.

I'm sure that's not allowed

set up processing in France, very simple as France has already offered this solution, cuts out traffickers, problem solved, but our government don't really want to fix it

They want them because the U.K. government is going to pay them to take them: £1.8M for each human successfully transported. Of course what they do with them once they are there is anybody’s guess.

Sunak has said that there are commercial charter planes "booked" and airfields "on standby".

news.sky.com/story/sunak-says-airfield-on-standby-and-planes-booked-for-rwanda-deportations-13120277

Urgh. I'm amazed this is allowed

Is this currently an offer?

France have become more hardline on migrants, eg saying no to Italy

I think it’s more the vast sums of money we’ve paid them for taking no people that they want. They are under no obligation to keep the people. They can probably leave to make their way back to the U.K. as soon as they get there.

Nah, it will be hundreds of flights each with 1 deportee and 5 guards in an otherwise empty plane that seats 200. That’s what regular deportation flights are like.

Why would it be on offer if the British government has consistently refused to consider opening processing facilities?

It’s allowed because parliament passed a law saying it’s allowed. That’s how laws work.

That’s different to a branded airline such as RwandAir

It’s not really a national airline thing

Well Rishi did say there would be loads and loads of flights for months to come in his speech yesterday.

Given the issue we had with the boat company and Brexit, has anyone checked that the commercial airline actually has planes?

UN has warned any commercial airline getting involved could be breaking international law. Ditto aviation authorities.

Won't the flights need permission to use the airspace of other countries? What if those countries say no?

Don't know, they should have bitten their hand off when it was offered but surely the best thing would be to open up negotiations with France to set this up, Rwanda won't stop the boats because there is only a small number going there so it's probably still worth the risk that you would get to stay here plus it won't make any difference to immigration numbers as it's reciprocal

They are busy building new ones, apparently.

I see your point and you do have one about the sneering.

However, i’m assuming most asylum seekers are not going on honeymoon, trekking in the jungle to see gorillas, don’t have the same privilege as you do. They aren’t going to have that life there.

No idea but if Australia are part of the UN and have managed to implement the laws they have

They’re full on wrt border control but also within international law. I guess we’ll see

Do we really want to use Australia as a model?

www.cnn.com/2024/04/22/europe/uk-australia-offshore-policy-rwanda-gbr-intl/index.html

I really don’t think France are keen. They have their own tensions with Italy and the EU is struggling to deal with the Med crossings and Lampedusa

Although France do do loads, the whole coastline has changed with deterrent including surveillance and drones which tbf is already a lot

Having a huge processing set up on their shores - well d be interested if that’s actually an offer given general political shift and migration issues

Hasn't the Australian policy also been deemed illegal and they're currently having to resettle the few (less than 100) migrants in PNG in Australia and New Zealand?

Illegal or not, the numbers are so tiny, it makes no difference except in the headlines and the costs are huge.

Rwanda is a wonderful place, I've visited many times, but it's not a suitable place to send refugees. It is a poor country still with a complex history and an abundance of issues of its own.
That region has more than enough displaced people to deal with already.
But I don't think the plan was intended to be workable anyway...

A bit cheeky as the UN itself has also sent migrants to Rwanda as part of its UNHCR resettlement programme.

No, it's exactly like the sickness absence one. It's not intended to actually change anything, only to grab headlines and appeal to certain voters, who they see as not terribly bright. The level of disdain for voters is abhorrent.

I’ve heard that Australia being very tough on immigration means that they are able to be more ‘generous’ with refugees. I think they take huge numbers of refugees compared to us. If I were a person living in a deprived part of Kent I would feel more inclined towards immigration if I felt the government had a firm grip on it.