Flight to Rwanda

[lbab1702]

I’d love to get a flight to Rwanda. Beautiful country and people ( I’ve been there before) but I don’t understand why refugees to the U.K. should go there.

Jurisprudence to which we agreed and to which we supply a judge to assist in applying and developing it.

Some people think the question of who gets to immigrate here should ultimately be decided by a government which complies with its treaty obligations, particularly its human rights obligations. That really isn't "outrageously ridiculous".

The hate speech has been deleted now by MNHQ.

@SleeplessInEngland I think you've got it spot in. Just when you think it can't get any worse.

We already have systems to process asylum all over the world.

I'm trying really hard not to unleash a tirade of swear words at that.
Where exactly do you get that from? The entire problem is that we DON'T provide a safe passage system for people to apply for asylum outside this country.

How does an electorate « agree » to the development of human rights concepts by a supranational court? How does the fact that we supply a judge to that court make this any more democratic?
what we are ending up with here is a conception of « rights » which does not command widespread support being imposed on us by a body we have no democratic control over. Its not sustainable and you can’t scold people into accepting it.

Quite right cat. We need more divisive policies as even Brexiters are sick of Brexit. What could be better than allowing the immigrant bashers free rein to vent and spaff over an utterly confected subject? And just to add further titillation for them they get to spout a bit more about Europe. Cos EuropeanCHR. Perfect. Divide and rule. Keep it up BJ, with luck you'll persuade this country to keep you as President for life.

@Freerangechildren We don’t have systems to process asylum seekers “all over the world” though. That’s the problem.

Ukraine, yes.
Afganistan, yes but with conditions.

Where else?

“The government are trying very hard to stem the tide of illegal migrants dying in the channel”

Are they? How? At the moment their plan seems to be to make them undertake the deadly crossing, then punish them by sending them to Rwanda. That’s not going to stemming the tide. As I mentioned before, sending asylum seekers to Rwanda will increase people smuggling from Rwanda to Libya to the Mediterranean.

The government hopes this scheme will work as a deterrent, “Australian style.” The only problem is, that didn’t work either:

“The report finds that the Australian model of offshore processing is cruel, costly and ineffective. In particular, the policy:

does not deter irregular maritime migration, 'stop the boats' or 'break the business model' of people smuggling networks;
does not 'save lives at sea' or achieve any other humanitarian objective; and
suffers from other policy failures, including enormous financial costs for Australian taxpayers, violations of fundamental rules of international law, numerous legal challenges and systemic cruelty.”

Source - A new report published last week by the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law considers Australia's policy of offshore processing for asylum seekers arriving by boat. The Kaldor Centre is based at University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney and is a leading academic research centre dedicated to the study of international refugee law.

https://www.ein.org.uk/news/academic-report-finds-australian-model-offshore-processing-asylum-seekers-which-uk-proposes

That sound you hear is Downing Street is popping the champagne. Bullshit has, once again, prevailed

Such a cynical view.

The NI protocol issues are serious, and not something anyone wants and hardly cause for celebration given what is at stake. What a strange thing to say.

The ECHR were stupid to get involved, knowing how badly this would be perceived not just here but by all of Europe (Poland etc no doubt taking note) and they definitely should have stayed out of this particular rats nest, because now they do look entirely unreasonable to most people. The immigration policy was a national decision made by a democratic government, heard and settled in our supreme courts and the ECHR decided to over ride it! Own goal springs to mind.

Signing up to a sura-national body = being an international player.

It's a seat at the table.

I see the U.K. as deserving of an international role.

How strange that 'nationalism' has come to mean curbing the international clout of the U.K.

Why do you hate the U.K. so much? Don't we merit power in the international power network?

And yet the numbers in Australia plummeted, so can you please explain why it didn't work. Most people especially in Australia, see it as a success.

"yet numerous people needing legal advice for family, property, debt issues cannot get it. You want to take your employer to tribunal, you’re on your own.
i just don’t think this position, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, has widespread public support. It’s breeding massive resentment which is socially destructive"

You won't receive more legal advice under this Government. They have reduced the legal aid budget for YEARS. They deliberately under fund the court system and the Police. It is falling apart at the seams.

Stopping people coming over on boats won't stop the Government running down key services - they'll just move on to find other people to blame.

How strange that 'nationalism' has come to mean curbing the international clout of the U.K

One judge hardly equates to international clout!

Why do you hate the U.K. so much? Don't we merit power in the international power network?

It is not a 'power' network It is one court in Strasburg.

Do you even know what it is?

Some people think the question of who gets to immigrate here should ultimately be decided by a government we elect in line with the laws our elected Parliament makes.

Which is why about 500,000 people arrive as legal immigrants every year, and 14,000 are granted asylum through the system, which means they are legal too. All decided by a government we elect in line with the laws our elected Parliament makes.

Such a cynical view.

The NI protocol issues are serious, and not something anyone wants and hardly cause for celebration Confused given what is at stake. What a strange thing to say.

I have no idea why you're bothering to roleplay as a true believer who thinks Johnson puts international relations and economic stability above his own political survival, but no-one's buying it.

Anyway, according to political twitter:

Govt will not attempt to remove bishops from Lords after their opposition to Rwanda policy, you'll be surprised to hear

It also won't be withdrawing from ECHR - although official line remains that all options are on the table

Focus likely to be on changes to modern slavery act
@Steven_Swinford

This policy won't solve the housing crisis, increase the legal aid budget, reduce fuel prices, increase public services or any of the other challenges this country faces.

It's not intended to.

So if you are backing it in the hope we will get better government and fairer access to services you are mistaken.

The Conservatives have had 12 years in Government to deal with those issues and they don't want to.

Rescinding from the ECHR almost certainly guarantees loss of our seat on the UN.

Which is, obviously, why we won't be moving away from the ECHR.

Despite all the huffing and puffing.

Anyone promoting a narrative of the U.K. going it alone it's either

• stupid (and a good few MPs are revealing themselves to be just that - if your MP is one of them, he's a lazy donkey - don't vote for a lazy donkey: you deserve better!

• disingenuous: they know it would result in a diminution of the UK's international clout but say it anyway in order to gain a little, tawdry traction.

So if you are backing it in the hope we will get better government and fairer access to services you are mistaken

The breathtaking entitlement of pp statement. Do you think you have some god given right to 'services' do you not understand that 'services' we pay for them! We vote for them, we do our best to fund them but they are not necessarily going to be available forever. The systems can and will buckle. All parties will have to grapple with the same issues.

I am not sure you have fully grasped what is happening to our country, or the mountain of debt we are in because of the pandemic, nor the huge challenges ahead. This goes far and beyond what any government of any persuasion has had to deal with.

@Freerangechildren
Ok, you think there are “hundreds of schemes and resettlement programmes.” and ”We are literally processing tens of thousands of people every single year.”

Hmm. The government doesn’t seem aware of this. In the government’s own words:

“The UK operates three resettlement schemes: The UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS), Community Sponsorship Scheme, and Mandate Resettlement Scheme. Other safe and legal pathways to the UK which are not covered in this document include, but are not limited to, Family Reunion and schemes to provide support to current and former locally employed staff in Afghanistan.”

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1011824/Resettlement_Policy_Guidance_2021.pdf

On numbers:

“Refugees can be resettled to the UK via the Mandate Scheme, the UK Resettlement Scheme (UKRS) Community Sponsorship Scheme and the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS).
1,587 people were granted protection through resettlement schemes in 2021.”

“In 2021, 6,134 Family reunion visas were issued to partners and children of those granted asylum or humanitarian protection in the UK.”
https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-in-the-uk.html

Can you please give links and evidence for the numbers you have quoted above?

Which is why about 500,000 people arrive as legal immigrants every year, and 14,000 are granted asylum through the system, which means they are legal too. All decided by a government we elect in line with the laws our elected Parliament makes

^ this

Aus is interesting as I don’t think the new Labor government have run on overturning Howard’s policies

The electorate on both sides seem to view it as what they prefer

I think we’ll see bigger shifts as climate change impacts migration, numbers are small now but what citizens want and vote for may change as it impacts

It appears to be a problem that will increase not the opposite

I am very comfortable with the processes we already have in place brave. We can not 'save' the world, but we can play our part for Afghans and Ukrainians in genuine need, but we have limits. As will every country!

Ah yes. Distraction and insults. I am well aware of the challenges this country faces which is why I have repeatedly brought up the £11 billion Sunak lost by not insuring against rate increases.

I repeat this policy will change nothing for public services, legal aid budgets or housing crisis or fuel bills - because the Government want to distract us with external threats rather than look to solve other issues.

I think we’ll see bigger shifts as climate change impacts migration, numbers are small now but what citizens want and vote for may change as it impacts. It appears to be a problem that will increase not the opposite

And the global recession is going to make things even worse in the coming months. Sri Lanka and other struggling economies will see an exodus, and already have.