Rwanda plan

[AdamRyan]

Was just reading Suella Bravermans thoughts on how to make the Rwanda plan work, which involve sending staff there to review claims and pulling out of all human rights and refugee conventions.

The plan has cost £140m to Rwanda so far, plus £££££ in legal fees and so far we've sent no-one and found out its illegal. I'm very baffled as to why the government are pursuing it, I keep hearing that "most people" support it. So I thought I'd ask:

IABU: It's a priority as it will deter immigration and the government should spend whatever money and time it takes to deliver this

IANBU: The government should focus time/money on other priorities instead.

@TizerorFizz that's all the info that I can find.

On the other hand, it may well be that we've had our shift to the right, seen for ourselves how dire that was, and are therefore now moving back. It may also well be that countries in Europe will follow essentially the same path.

I’d probably check that against general world events in the last few days alone

Netherlands elections, Argentina elections, Dublin riots..

Yet another reason why it makes sense to offer safe passage. Not only would it put the boat opertors out of business, but it would mean that we could control the areas of arrival and ensure sensible distribution.

It's entirely compatible with events over the last few days. We've had our right wing disaster, places like the Netherlands unfortunately have yet to go through it, but they may well follow us back away frm the right after they have experienced the reality.

I doubt it.

Aus dealt with border issues years ago. It’s bi partisan policy now.

No one is crazy enough to re open that can of worms

What does that have to do with what might happen following events like the Netherlands elections?

How are you not sure what the connection is?

You think people will shift back

I’ve given an example of a country who has sorted border issues. They tend to stick and very few think it’s dire

Pressure will increase until other countries follow, then it’s unlikely to reverse. You can actually see change after a gov has put policies in place but the left tend not to touch border stuff. Eg Aus Labor

Poland, of course, is another example of a country that has moved away from the right.

https://x.com/refugeecouncil/status/1727988536979189773?s=20

Two years on from the terrible tragedy that claimed the lives of at least 27 people crossing the English Channel, we remember and honour them, alongside many more precious lives lost on dangerous journeys to the UK. Two other lives were lost in the same way just two days ago. Humans in search of safety deserve just that. To stop witnessing these tragedies, we must create safe routes for all refugees wishing to come to the UK: we need to improve resettlement and refugee family reunion schemes and make it easier for people to travel to the UK to claim asylum.

May I revive the thread to ask a few questions about latest version of this?

Things in my head:

1. One of the latest changes is that Rwanda would only be allowed to deport the claimants back to UK. Couldn't be deported to anywhere else. That sounds like no point in the plan, then, but presumably the Rwanda courts will take so long to make decisions, that the claimants will leave Rwanda, then make their way back to North Africa etc. to try for Europe again. And their claims will be wiped from record, start over. Is that the thinking?

1. Braverman said on R4Today this morning that her ideas for changes to Rw.Plan would definitely not violate any international law. What are her ideas? Nick Robinson was too busy in trying to get her to call Sunak useless to ask her.

1. Is Braverman really so deluded as to think the reason Tories will get throttled at next election is because they didn't "Stop the Boats" ? Nothing to do with PartyGate, Brexit & cost of living crisis... really?

1. Did anyone hearing the interview this morning on R4, smile to selves when she said ".... Stop the Boats.... time for slogans is over!.... Stop the Boats..." in 3 consequetive sentences?

I dearly hope she loses her seat in next election.

I think the Bill is pretty clever combined with the treaty actually. And it can work.

I assume that if you did not qualify for asylum in Rwanda the U.K. would then use that decision as a basis to deport you back to wherever you had come from, based on the newly minted process in the treaty.

This will cost a lot. But the treaty process fixes a lot of issues in the SC judgment.

I assume that if you did not qualify for asylum in Rwanda the U.K. would then use that decision as a basis to deport you back to wherever you had come from, based on the newly minted process in the treaty.

I understand that the new treaty forbids failed applicants being sent from Rwanda back to their home country - those who fail are to be returned to the UK.

The issue that was worrying the lawyers last time was that Rwanda would send people back to the country they claimed to be fleeing persecution or risk in. The government cannot get around that by simply passing a law allowing it so any such people would have to come back to the UK.

The numbers are so tiny and the costs so high that nobody except the most headbanging Tory can think this is in any way workable or viable in any case.

Braverman has no grip on reality - she is illustrating that the Tories now are just rats fighting in a sack, not in any way seriously expecting to be in power for the next few years.

Yes but that is the obligations between the U.K. and Rwanda. That doesn't mean the UK could not use that finding itself on return; and if done via a British judge might make a good precedent for final removal.

Or maybe they get another claim? That seems unclear but would defeat the whole purpose

Why would sending people back to the place they claim to be fleeing be any more valid if done from the UK? It would still contravene the UN convention. The only way to start shipping people back will be to opt out of various international law and conventions.

It is not necessarily illegal to send someone who has a failed asylum claim back to their country. It used to happen! The claim must be dealt with correctly for that to happen, but it isn't unlawful in of itself.

I don’t think sending back failed claims is an issue under international law.

I think the issue is the consideration of individual claims - the government is trying to legislate to make generalised decisions - where people can be sent back if their claim fails. They (asylum seekers) are currently able to make an individual challenge to that based on their own personal circumstances.

Simple fact is if you tell voters how much it costs, the maximum number of immigrants it can deal with and how many will be sent from Rwanda to here in return, they're generally not in favour of the plan. There are so many better, more practical, workable and affordable plans.

If a general election was to be fought on the Rwanda plan the facts couldn't be hidden and it would prove dismally unpopular.

Italy is going with Albania for processing

I’m not sure how they deal with legal challenge or not

They also reject about half which I think is higher than here, not sure what they’re applying v us that our acceptance rate is high generally

The costs are being underplayed. What I note is the fact that it will be the effective export of English lawyers to Rwanda to make this process possible at all: effectively offshoring the system but within another jurisdiction.

That doesn't seem impossible to me. It means there is still an individual claim and consideration, and to the same standard in the U.K.

I assume Braverman and Jenrick don't like it because it doesn't serve their wider attack on the ECHR.

Or they can both see it for the omnishambles it is - although that seems less likely

Perhaps the Italians don’t have a cohort of willing and able lawyers waiting to represent asylum seekers?
Italy sending their unwanted migrants to Albania is interesting though - presumably we’ll soon be getting them here via our apparently pretty porous borders with Albania.

I am not a supporter of this government but they did actually negotiate an agreement with Albania on returns and I think it may be quite effective