Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Rwanda plan

949 replies

AdamRyan · 16/11/2023 23:05

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
43
CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau · 07/12/2023 18:18

@jgw1 I wasn’t intending to be nasty to you, I was differentiating myself and you from American Republicans through oblique means. I don’t think either you or I are them.

There are a lot of reasons why people fleeing war and hardship make a beeline for this country and I admit I don’t have my hands on the precise state, although I was thinking about countries with a similar economic state, infrastructure and reputation - Germany and France. I’m sure most refugees aren’t sitting there thinking “I know a bit of English and am familiar with UK culture through worldwide media. I could really make a life there. Let’s go to Spain!”

CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau · 07/12/2023 18:19

Autocorrect from stats there, sorry

TizerorFizz · 07/12/2023 18:31

Many legal commentators believe this Bill
is not watertight. It is still possible to have legal challenges. It doesn’t close the ECHR route. Geoffrey Robinson KC feels there’s lots of issues that are not addressed.

The more left leaning Conservatives don’t like it and obviously the Rees Moggs of this world don’t either. Braverman and Jennrick are clearly motivated by leadership dreams. Once you get into three word slogans, its a big attempt to get voters on side.

The other issue is who these people are speaking to. I should be a natural conservative voter based on where I live, income, business interests etc. However these people in the Cons make me sick. It’s a blatant move to the right to grab attention following on from the Netherlands. If we go along with this, and many will, it’s the next disaster waiting to happen following on from Brexit. The comments I heard from conservative members on the radio this morning were disgusting. Not all of them of course but they will choose right wing conservative MPs. It’s dangerous.

jgw1 · 07/12/2023 18:31

CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau · 07/12/2023 18:18

@jgw1 I wasn’t intending to be nasty to you, I was differentiating myself and you from American Republicans through oblique means. I don’t think either you or I are them.

There are a lot of reasons why people fleeing war and hardship make a beeline for this country and I admit I don’t have my hands on the precise state, although I was thinking about countries with a similar economic state, infrastructure and reputation - Germany and France. I’m sure most refugees aren’t sitting there thinking “I know a bit of English and am familiar with UK culture through worldwide media. I could really make a life there. Let’s go to Spain!”

No nastiness detected from you on my part.

Alexandra2001 · 07/12/2023 20:23

I think a Govt making laws to over ride the Supreme Court is a very dangerous thing to be honest.
They've effectively said that Rwanda is a safe country and no one is allowed to challenge that, even though nothing has really changed.

Can't really believe people welcome this, then again, history shows the extremes are usually authoritarian.

Italy/Albania is a totally different agreement, 3000 per month, housed whilst Italy fast tracks their Asylum cases, perhaps a real deterrent...... not so Rwanda taking a few 100.

TizerorFizz · 07/12/2023 20:48

@Alexandra2001 When politicians reduce policies to three words you know they are using slogans because the electorate won’t understand the complex arguments. As in Brexit. I bet a good many people don’t remotely understand the role of the Supreme Court and the ECHR. They haven’t evaluated the law and even less our standing in the world if we ignore human rights and are viewed the same as Russian and Belarus! Frankly too many people don’t care and too many aren’t bright enough to care from what I’ve been listening to.

Passepartoute · 07/12/2023 20:52

bombastix · 07/12/2023 11:32

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.

Sending lawyers out is surely going to cost a fortune when you take into account fares, subsistence costs etc. I wonder whether it makes the whole process justiciable here, if it is only possible with the involvement of English lawyers whose decisions aren't going to be infallible.

Hoovermehenry · 07/12/2023 20:54

It’s bullcrap. it isn’t going to stop people
coming over. They’re desperate and/or determined. When you’re living hand to mouth as a refugee anything can change at a moment notice and it’s worth the risk.
we should be embarrassed by this nasty bunch running the country…

Passepartoute · 07/12/2023 20:57

Section 2(2) of the Rwanda bill:

"Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country."

I question whether that's compatible with the judicial oath.

jgw1 · 07/12/2023 20:57

Passepartoute · 07/12/2023 20:52

Sending lawyers out is surely going to cost a fortune when you take into account fares, subsistence costs etc. I wonder whether it makes the whole process justiciable here, if it is only possible with the involvement of English lawyers whose decisions aren't going to be infallible.

Show quote history

Do lawyers exist who would actually want to do the job?

CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau · 07/12/2023 20:59

The cost of sending lawyers to Rwanda, feeding them, housing them and paying them a living wage would be negligible in comparison to the money already wasted on this stupid scheme.

Passepartoute · 07/12/2023 21:15

Do lawyers exist who would actually want to do the job?

I expect Suella's up for it.

jgw1 · 07/12/2023 21:27

Passepartoute · 07/12/2023 21:15

Do lawyers exist who would actually want to do the job?

I expect Suella's up for it.

I'm sure it would probably suit Raab as well.

DuncinToffee · 07/12/2023 21:53

CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau · 07/12/2023 20:59

The cost of sending lawyers to Rwanda, feeding them, housing them and paying them a living wage would be negligible in comparison to the money already wasted on this stupid scheme.

legal costs alone, £2.1m and counting

https://x.com/lizziedearden/status/1732755733324722216?s=20

The UK government has so far spent over £2.1m on legal action over the Rwanda migration scheme

Challenging the Court of Appeal ruling that it was unlawful cost almost £300,000 alone, and they lost

New legal challenges to new bill and treaty are inevitable so costs will rise

DuncinToffee · 07/12/2023 22:36

https://x.com/JasonGroves1/status/1732879076338131099?s=20

NEW: The cost of the govt’s Rwanda scheme has doubled before a single migrant has been sent there. Home Office admits tonight it has handed over another £100m this year, on top of the original £140m cost - with a further £50m to follow next year

Home Office writing to select committee chairs tonight to confirm the cost of the Rwanda scheme is on course to rise from £140m to £290m

bombastix · 07/12/2023 23:02

I just think it will take a miracle to get this through, let alone implement it by the next election. Assuming that is the latest in Autumn 2024 I still think that is not enough time. You might just get it through. How many people might be sent to Rwanda itself is doubtful, really doubtful.

I'm sure it's high priority enough, but it really does look like panic. And it doesn't appear to be doing them much good in the polls.

Notonthestairs · 07/12/2023 23:16

£290 million pounds! I'm gobsmacked. They've been asked a number of times about the escalating costs and dragged their heels about providing information.

Have they published the Home Office assessment of the likely impact/success of this project?

EasternStandard · 08/12/2023 09:14

Italy is offshoring to Albania, which will probably help although at 50% ish acceptance rate they could still have increasing numbers. I’m not sure how they deal with legal challenge on a decision.

Increasing costs will be likely wherever people are, although if this gets squashed I’m not sure what the plan is for rising numbers

It’s either a deterrent - and if people think this one isn’t it which deterrent do they want? - or go with higher numbers as things get more pressurised

The only thing possible atm in international law is alternative location, but people might want other ways to deal with it

jgw1 · 08/12/2023 09:17

EasternStandard · 08/12/2023 09:14

Italy is offshoring to Albania, which will probably help although at 50% ish acceptance rate they could still have increasing numbers. I’m not sure how they deal with legal challenge on a decision.

Increasing costs will be likely wherever people are, although if this gets squashed I’m not sure what the plan is for rising numbers

It’s either a deterrent - and if people think this one isn’t it which deterrent do they want? - or go with higher numbers as things get more pressurised

The only thing possible atm in international law is alternative location, but people might want other ways to deal with it

Why would one want a deterrent to stop people, human beings like you and me fleeing persecution?

Is now a good time to remind people about the St Louis?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

MS St. Louis - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_St._Louis

EasternStandard · 08/12/2023 09:21

Not everyone will want to use a deterrent. But it could get difficult politically and with public reaction as we’re seeing in the EU rise of right and Dublin a recent example

Numbers will go up, an easy but limiting way to manage that isn’t possible, so it’ll come down to what people want and vote for.

DuncinToffee · 08/12/2023 09:22

EasternStandard · 08/12/2023 09:21

Not everyone will want to use a deterrent. But it could get difficult politically and with public reaction as we’re seeing in the EU rise of right and Dublin a recent example

Numbers will go up, an easy but limiting way to manage that isn’t possible, so it’ll come down to what people want and vote for.

Who do you want to deter, people smugglers or refugees?

Suddenlychrimbo · 08/12/2023 09:26

I find it genuinely astonishing that well over 100 people in this thread think deporting people to Rwanda is a good idea, on the basis of ' something needs to be done'.

How is ending people to a random African country at an eye watering cost a good idea. It sounds like a test of the publics sanity to me by a Tory think tank. "If they support this, we'll feed them anything and they'll lap it up".

I mean, it's totally ridiculous isn't it? completely non sensical, morally highly dubious and economical lunacy.

Sunak has completely lost his marbles, Suella and Jenrick obvioulsy think , somehow, that sending people to Rwanda is too cushy? .

The fact that they are now threatening to completely ignore the law is incredibly worrying..laws are the standard check and balance for any functioning society.

That the Prime Minister is openly bragging about breaking them and ignoring them is scary in so much as how many of the general public will see it as a green light for them to ignore the law as well?

These dangerous idiots need getting rid of a soon as possible.

EasternStandard · 08/12/2023 09:31

Imo there is a misconception around managing numbers in other ways, I’m not saying people have to agree on which way to go more that there’s probably a sizeable amount who think there an easy and limiting method.

Some might want higher numbers over deterrent, others might want to limit, everyone will be different and that’s fine. It’s more what is possible, as the law stands atm

jgw1 · 08/12/2023 09:34

EasternStandard · 08/12/2023 09:31

Imo there is a misconception around managing numbers in other ways, I’m not saying people have to agree on which way to go more that there’s probably a sizeable amount who think there an easy and limiting method.

Some might want higher numbers over deterrent, others might want to limit, everyone will be different and that’s fine. It’s more what is possible, as the law stands atm

Given that over a million migrants came into the UK last year, supported by the government, it is bizarre to be worrying about a few thousand asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution.

DuncinToffee · 08/12/2023 09:35

jgw1 · 08/12/2023 09:34

Given that over a million migrants came into the UK last year, supported by the government, it is bizarre to be worrying about a few thousand asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution.

Show quote history

It's around 7% of the total immigration number I thnk.

Swipe left for the next trending thread