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.

People smugglers tell the refugees what they need to say to get residency

Fascinated to understand how you know this?

@GaggleTheGoose How? Do you not uphold the rule of law?

@TizerorFizz yes, but it was rejected by the SC due to the refoulement issue and Rushi has promised to amend the proposal to address this. He is not ignoring the ruling he is addressing their concerns so it is acceptable to them.

@Asiatoyork are you really that naive or is this a wind up.

Well said.

Once it is up and running it should save money, much cheaper accommodation etc. and it would be a deterrent.

Would about Poland they refuse Muslims...

Get on with breaking international law and spend another millions of public money and thousands of hours of civil servant time on fixing the asylum system in Rwanda?

Just to save the Government's blushes?

Can you expand on that? Maybe with some links

Hardly, just making it work. I have no idea why you are so opposed to the Rwanda plan. Better value for the tax man as will get the refugees out of our hotels.

Better value for the tax man?

I would love to see how you worked that one out.

'Free movement' was always a bonkers idea, and a big part of the reason many voted for Brexit.

What a narrow minded comment. I made good use of the freedom of movement and lived in 3 other countries without being a drain on their resources. Many EU citizens benefit from being able to live and work in any other EU country without being a drain. It's a wonderful thing.

I have no idea why you are so opposed to the Rwanda plan.
Really @youngones1 ? Have you not read any of the posts on here giving darn good reasons? Not least poverty and human rights concerns.

The notorious woke leftie liberal tofu eating Lord Sumption thinks the deal is more or less dead

#TrevorPhillips: Rishi Sunak has talked about emergency legislation that would change the law.. how could that work?

Lord Sumption: "I understand that it's not proposed to change the law, but to change the facts... I think the current Rwanda scheme is probably dead.."

https://x.com/Haggis_UK/status/1726181049775042858?s=20



A longer clip if anyone is interested

https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1726183114312167769?s=20

Left: Jeremy Hunt says it is our democratic right to change the law to make Rwanda lawful

Right: Former Supreme Court judge Lord Sumption says, "The current Rwanda scheme is probably dead." He then dismantles Sunak and Hunt's Rwanda rhetoric

Yes. The only actual question is whether the government actually try.

The only way it will work is to have an effective treaty with Rwanda that fixes the problems as evidenced for their asylum system.

Barely anyone is going to go there though. I think they are planning for 1000 a year so let's be generous and say the gov will send 2% of the total of asylum seekers (80,000 last year), or 0.05% of total migrants (600,000 last year).
It's not going to make much of a dent on costs at all even assuming it is cheaper to charter flights to Rwanda and pay the Rwandan govt to manage it.

The Government have already spent £140m and that's without legal costs. Migration watch say it costs £51,000 a year to house an asylum seeker in a hotel. So to break even we'd have to send 2745 migrants. We haven't sent any yet.

I really don't understand the business case for doing this. The benefits are tiny, the costs seem high and the risks are huge. The government cancelled HS2 which had a much more solid reason for being than this plan. I really don't get why the Conservatives are so wedded to it, to the point they want to get rid of human rights law.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist but something about this really doesn't add up. My suspicion is someone somewhere is creaming in the big bucks, we just don't know who it is yet.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-61782866

Would the plan save the government money?
The government has not provided a total cost for the scheme.
An economic-impact assessment prepared for the government's Illegal Migration Bill estimated that removing each individual to a third country, such as Rwanda, would cost £63,000 more than keeping them in the UK.
That is the difference between the total cost of removing an individual - estimated to be £169,000 - and the £106,000 spent on housing support if they remain in the UK.
The latter figure includes a payment to the third country of around £105,000 per person, as well as £22,000 for flights.

Why are we doing this? Instead of spending that money on fixing RAAC or court waiting lists or even asylum processing systems?

But in the future we may be processing many more refugees due to climate change and with economies of scale the price per person is going to come down hugely, this is a long term project.

The current system already costs £3bn a year and we still can't get it right that's why we need something completely different.

sunk cost fallacy

Only the UK government could spend £22,000 on a one way flight to Rwanda, I despair.

are you really that naive or is this a wind up

@youngones1 indulge me. Is it what you think or what you know? Best business model is surely them being chucked out and having to be shipped back again.

It isn't going to involve enough spaces to really make much deference.

But the real issue is that although Rwandans are very lovely people, their government is deeply corrupt and untrustworthy. Dealing with them, monitoring, and trying to make sure they are going to do things properly would be hugely intensive and expensive, and I would still expect at some point to have scandals coming out of it.

The general public has a sense of this and it's part of why they are resistant to the whole idea, it just doesn't sit well.