Sudan and getting UK citizens out

[UnsureSchool32]

There seems to be one RAF jet going back and forth from Cyprus. Since there are a number of RAF jets in Cyprus I can’t see while there is a ceasefire that they can’t send more than one? It seems it’s re-fuelling then heading back.

granted it’s a complicated system on the ground, and people are struggling to get to the airstrip so maybe the numbers are not there for more than one jet?

Which is why I said there should be an exception for people who are UK domiciled. People who have UK investments that are taxed - well, you can't catch all issues because there are always complexities that arise.

I don't see that the insurance would need to be huge amounts, as a lot of people work abroad and evacuation events are not happening all the time. I would think a hundred pounds a year or so per person would probably be sufficient. Which pales into insignificance compared with the salaries a lot of expats earn, and is probably a lot less than if they had to sort their own air transport out.

They chose to live there,aware of the simmering unrest.
They take their benefits no doubt but pay nothing into the country and now demand that the RAF risk their lives to get them out immediately.
The children and animals I have every sympathy for but the rest not so much.
Posters may not like it but it's only my opinion.
Yes I appreciate the armed forces are aware there is a risk to live when signing up,but I don't think they should be sent in when it is too dangerous to do so.

@GasPanic

you can't catch all issues because there are always complexities that arise.

You're absolutely right, I'm just trying to head off thoughts that HMRC automatically loses all interest in Brits living abroad...a lot, including quite a few retirees, do still pay into the UK's coffers.

FWIW even being deemed "non-resident for tax purposes" by HMRC can leave you liable for UK income tax on pay/pensions (and in some circumstances NI if you are still working)....

@KarmaStar

They take their benefits no doubt but pay nothing into the country

As I posted earlier you can't assume that is the case...

Do people not think that the Forces are just a little bit busy at the moment with everything else going on?

These 'expats' (scoff) took the decision to move to a country which is known for political unrest/has risks attached.

They got themselves their, and the main reasons is higher income with zero contribution to uk system.

Now it's all gone wrong, they feel it's the uk government and our service personnel's job to get them out.

I've not followed this situation closely, but is it not the case that most people stuck in Sudan who have British citizenship are there because they are visiting family or making trips for work purposes or stationed there by their employers, e.g. relief agencies, British Council, and probably not for the long term? Why shouldn't they be able to ask their own government for help to get out of a civil war? Sudan is not a rich oil country. People don't go there to earn huge tax-free salaries on the lines of UAE, do they? Maybe I am massively out of the loop.

This is a veiled accusation of racism - why not just say it's racism?

As far as I can see the Uk government is very even-handed in their application of a lack of care to overseas citizens.

Also it's a really questionable place to be going unless you are a diplomat or an aid worker.

Oh please. The vast majority of Brits in Sudan will be ordinary people of Sudanese heritage, visiting family etc. We're not talking about expats on danger money.
Like it or not, it's the government and armed forces job to look after all of us.
Lots of people make lots of poor decisions that we all end up paying for, I don't see why this should be different.

@AncientQuercus they aren’t too busy, there are British troops on the ground defending the airfield taking over from the German troops. There are 1,400 British troops working on the evacuation so these accusations of racism are completely unfounded and offensive to the men and women risking their lives to help evacuate.

Op, I think it’s because this is not Khartoum airport but a smaller based outside the city. There will be a lot of countries demanding to land planes to rescue nationals - can you imagine the chaos! So it may be the RAF only has permission to land one plane.

There have been warnings in place from the government for at least 18 months advising British nationals that travel to Sudan is not safe. I believe also that advice was given that people who chose to go should be thinking how to make a swift exit. I understand that people have family there, but really it's not a place of safety and hasn't been for some while.

Sudan and South Sudan combined probably in the world top 30 exporters of oil.

So not huge, but a fairly big industry.

Thank,s, clearly I have a bit more reading up to do. I still think, though, that a lot of British nationals caught up there will be of Sudanese origin. Not just so easy to say they should have refused to travel to Sudan for the last 18 months if that would mean missing a last chance to see a loved one who is dying or to attend a funeral or other important family occasion, especially after the impossibility of travel during lockdown.

What, like a heart surgeon from Glasgow?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-africa-65395288

or this Scottish teacher of English?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65384399

And the ceasefire is patchy. Foreign troops are intermittently coming under fire (French took casualties)

The main difficulty does seem to be getting to the airport - those being evacuated have to make their own way there (no one has troops on ground to assist)

And for those worried about cost, I don't know if it's being used for this, but there is provision for the government to bill people for evacuation flights.

British Council staff will probably have been evacuated with Embassy staff, but other development and aid workers (and their families, if either British or eligible to live in Britain) will be a largish group within those being brought out.

Maybe the flights could combined with the Rwanda deportation plan. Fly deportees from the UK to Rwanda, drop them off and refuel the plane, then hop on up to Sudan, pick up the evacuees and bring them back.

But that would require joined up thinking on the part of the government of course.

Countries are taking different views. This issue is hardly reported in USA for example, despite having 16,000 citizens in The Sudan. This is what they are saying…

From Associated Press & Boston News..

….the U.S. government told some 16,000 US citizens in Sudan that they need to fend for themselves and that there won’t be mass evacuation. White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said “It is not standard practice for the United States to send in the U.S. military to extract American citizens from war zones. We didn’t do it in Libya. We didn’t do it in Syria. We didn’t do it in Yemen, and no we didn’t do it in Ukraine. Afghanistan was a unique case involving the end of the 20-year war that the United States was centrally involved in.”

Blimey

From Associated Press 27 April 23
The State Department, which has advised U.S. citizens for years not to travel to Sudan, continues to advise Americans to shelter in place. Most of the estimated 16,000 Americans believed to be in Sudan right now are dual U.S.-Sudanese nationals and only a fraction of them have expressed a desire to leave.

We are doing better than others…

White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said Monday that Washington has begun facilitating the overland departure of private U.S. citizens who want to leave Sudan with the use of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets. Earlier, the U.S. government told some 16,000 US citizens in Sudan that they need to fend for themselves and that there won’t be mass evacuation.
“It is not standard practice for the United States to send in the U.S. military to extract American citizens from war zones”, Sullivan said. “We didn’t do it in Libya. We didn’t do it in Syria. We didn’t do it in Yemen, and no we didn’t do it in Ukraine. Afghanistan was a unique case involving the end of the 20-year war that the United States was centrally involved in.”
(Sources: Associated Press. Boston News)