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.

You want to reduce the backlog in processing claims by stripping refugees and asylum seekers of their human rights?

Yes but say your party lose. And then a government comes which extends no appeal, and no rights to something you care about. You can do nothing. This new government has a 200 plus majority and they have passed an emergency law that your human right to properly no longer apply. That is plausible

Next year, Keri Starmer wins an election with a 200 seat majority. He can do as he pleases.

Like any lawyer would, he sees this useful precedent of Sunak. A justification in law for removing rights based in international law.

Why it's a gift. You could pretty much do anything with that. Exclude property rights. End criminal appeals. Allow torture in certain circumstances.

You want to be really careful what power you give to politicians over you. Because in law your own rights, your own rights in the Human Rights Act, there is no difference between you and an asylum seeker.

Yes, but I am saying that they should have a right to make their case in front of an experienced judge with a lawyer representing them.

But why? You can just exclude all of that and it saves money. Why bother?

Sarcasm?

I mean it seriously. What is the point of giving an appeal when there is no recognition of international conventions and the domestic law has been excluded.

On what basis would a judge decide?

I am suggesting no appeal.

So no appeal because you have no rights.

I have to say that basically, assuming this was done for asylum seekers it could be done to any citizen of this country.

I've heard them say this on Sky TV that many people claiming asylum in the UK have already applied in Germany or other EU countries and had their claim refused. They just try various different countries when they are not in fear for their lives, they just want a better life and that is an economic migrant not an asylum seeker.

Good point.

So basically for the purposes of saving money you would like the government to announce a legally effective way of removing human rights.

Well, it's a thought

I would hardly say having your case heard in court with a lawyer representing you is having no human rights!

But you said no appeal. Your idea is that they get one appeal. That is already the system.

the companies that manufacture blow up dinghies? seriously?

You know the boats are actually commissioned to spec by the gangs that organize this. Made in China and basically untraceable

So what your saying is at the moment they just fill out a form and a decision is made. That shouldn't take any longer than a week.

No. I'm saying that they only have one appeal.

So, are you suggesting the government steal the empty houses from individuals?

@youngones1 Its a bit more complex than that!

It is a dangerous precedent for our government to pass a law declaring Rwanda a suitable place for deportation when the Supreme Court says it’s not. It’s taken the SC weeks to consider reams of evidence from numerous claimants and the government’s lawyers to reach this conclusion. Yet the government is to pass a law very quickly (this week?) that says to the contrary because it wishes to ignore the verdict. The 5 SC judges delivering the verdict included its President and Deputy President. They are the top judges and no government should seek to pass a law to circumvent their judgement. That’s a very very dangerous thing to do and I’m disgusted with Sunak,

Not sure about Rwanda, but clearly something must be done. Why not start with turning back the boats instead of letting the French escort them here? Now there's a waste of money, what a joke that the French take millions in UK money and do nothing. Australia has the right idea, but I don't hear the whinging open borders liberals/lefties here complaining about that. It is simply not possible to let things carry on as they are, and God knows what labour think they can do if elected. Seems the tide is turning in other European countries though, and about time. 'Free movement' was always a bonkers idea, and a big part of the reason many voted for Brexit. It is only ever going to be one way traffic, to countries with the best welfare system/most lax bureaucracy/ most inefficient border controls etc.

If you are talking about the uk, there’s been a lot of disquiet about Australian tactics. You maybe just don’t read the press that mentions it as you seem prejudiced snd a rude name caller.

Free movement contributed to the immigration of many highly qualified individuals who paid tax and were an asset. It’s just ridiculous to think they weee all a problem to us. They might have been disliked by Brexit voting folk with racist overtones but overall we gained from them.

I think a lot of people are concerned about how to manage refugees, who's numbers will only increase, as it becomes clear that a system developed for a very different time is not going to work.

But I don't really see how the Rwanda plan could be made to work. And even if it was possible to make it work, I just don't think it would solve the problem to a degree that would repay the costs involved.

That being said, I think there is a reason other places in Europe are looking at similar types of plans. No one really has any significantly better ideas, or maybe better to say, significantly different approaches. Everyone is facing the same problem and no one really knows what to do about it.

They should stop pissing about and get on with it.