UK asylum seekers expected to be flown to Rwanda
Discussion
p1stonhead said:
Why the f
k are they fighting so hard for this?
Labour have already said they’ll quite rightly repeal it and stop wasting money on such nonsense.
Because what else have they got? They basically gave up actual government a year or more ago, if they hadn't done this nonsense parliament would virtually have been redundant this year, they've got no actual solutions to anything, so they're just pretending to govern at this point. Rwanda is just a squirrel, neither the PM or HS even think it will work. k are they fighting so hard for this?Labour have already said they’ll quite rightly repeal it and stop wasting money on such nonsense.
p1stonhead said:
Why the fk are they fighting so hard for this?
Labour have already said they’ll quite rightly repeal it and stop wasting money on such nonsense.
Target fixation. Denial of reality? k are they fighting so hard for this?Labour have already said they’ll quite rightly repeal it and stop wasting money on such nonsense.
It's like the Captain of the Titanic desperately hanging off the wheel in the bridge, in his head he knows it can't turn harder and it won't miss the iceberg, but he can't do anything else other than try.
Ridgemont said:
p1stonhead said:
Why the fk are they fighting so hard for this?
Labour have already said they’ll quite rightly repeal it and stop wasting money on such nonsense.
I’ll put a fair amount down that if this gets passed and up and running there is no way Labour will repeal it.k are they fighting so hard for this?Labour have already said they’ll quite rightly repeal it and stop wasting money on such nonsense.
ATG said:
Ridgemont said:
p1stonhead said:
Why the fk are they fighting so hard for this?
Labour have already said they’ll quite rightly repeal it and stop wasting money on such nonsense.
I’ll put a fair amount down that if this gets passed and up and running there is no way Labour will repeal it.k are they fighting so hard for this?Labour have already said they’ll quite rightly repeal it and stop wasting money on such nonsense.
And being sure how Rwanda plays out is a fools errand: there were lots of people who were (and probably still are) convinced not a single person will end up on the plane to Rwanda. That I suspect is not how this is going to play out now. And I genuinely don’t know the impact of it becoming operational on immigration flow. None of us do.
Look at the numbers involved. If you've got thousands of people already prepared to live in squalor in northern France just to get the opportunity to put their lives at serious risk in a crappy boat just to then get detained in the UK ... and you're only going to send a few hundred people to Rwanda ... why would the slight additional risk of being sent to Rwanda change anyone's behaviour?
Would it change yours?? Seriously, put yourself in the position of someone trying to cross the channel. Think it through from their perspective.
Would it change yours?? Seriously, put yourself in the position of someone trying to cross the channel. Think it through from their perspective.
I still think this is a cover for going after our membership of the ECHR. It can't be all about pleasing a few nutters in the Tory party membership. They'll pick an unsympathetic candidate with a solid legal defence and let them use the ECHR to defend themselves, then use the outrage as fuel to withdraw from the court.
ATG said:
Look at the numbers involved. If you've got thousands of people already prepared to live in squalor in northern France just to get the opportunity to put their lives at serious risk in a crappy boat just to then get detained in the UK ... and you're only going to send a few hundred people to Rwanda ... why would the slight additional risk of being sent to Rwanda change anyone's behaviour?
Would it change yours?? Seriously, put yourself in the position of someone trying to cross the channel. Think it through from their perspective.
Because Rwanda bar the afghani British Army connection appears to be a one way trip. To Rwanda.Would it change yours?? Seriously, put yourself in the position of someone trying to cross the channel. Think it through from their perspective.
Look your point is valid: it could be argued that its impact will be minimal. But obversely we don’t know how the impact of well televised flights with Home Office literature being peppered over the north of France will play out.
Sunak has just announced it will be scaled to 2500 rapidly. Without limit.
Will the legislation work. Who knows. I am absolutely convinced that if it gets up and running Labour will be extremely reluctant to overturn once established especially if it has an impact on small boat numbers.
glazbagun said:
I still think this is a cover for going after our membership of the ECHR. It can't be all about pleasing a few nutters in the Tory party membership. They'll pick an unsympathetic candidate with a solid legal defence and let them use the ECHR to defend themselves, then use the outrage as fuel to withdraw from the court.
There is no Tory PP numbers for that.That said if the ECHR intervenes (somehow) again that may switch.
Personally I think what will kill the policy eventually is a number of well publicised, by UK Media, ‘travesties of justice’ where someone who should have been given asylum ended up plonked in a stockade in Rwanda for years.
Given the media appetite for that monster Begum in Syria I suspect it won’t take long for evidence to be assembled that suggests that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. But that stuff plays out over many years.
With lots of court action all the way up to Supreme level. Labour won’t touch this with a barge pole in the meanwhile.
Given the media appetite for that monster Begum in Syria I suspect it won’t take long for evidence to be assembled that suggests that a miscarriage of justice has occurred. But that stuff plays out over many years.
With lots of court action all the way up to Supreme level. Labour won’t touch this with a barge pole in the meanwhile.
Ridgemont said:
ATG said:
Look at the numbers involved. If you've got thousands of people already prepared to live in squalor in northern France just to get the opportunity to put their lives at serious risk in a crappy boat just to then get detained in the UK ... and you're only going to send a few hundred people to Rwanda ... why would the slight additional risk of being sent to Rwanda change anyone's behaviour?
Would it change yours?? Seriously, put yourself in the position of someone trying to cross the channel. Think it through from their perspective.
Because Rwanda bar the afghani British Army connection appears to be a one way trip. To Rwanda.Would it change yours?? Seriously, put yourself in the position of someone trying to cross the channel. Think it through from their perspective.
Look your point is valid: it could be argued that its impact will be minimal. But obversely we don’t know how the impact of well televised flights with Home Office literature being peppered over the north of France will play out.
Sunak has just announced it will be scaled to 2500 rapidly. Without limit.
Will the legislation work. Who knows. I am absolutely convinced that if it gets up and running Labour will be extremely reluctant to overturn once established especially if it has an impact on small boat numbers.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/gal...
Interesting quick read.
“ the UN was there watching people get killed, because they were afraid. They took their planes, they went abroad with their dogs. Instead of protecting the citizens who were killed, they evacuated their dogs. I lost all my uncles. I don’t consider Rwanda before 1994. I just consider Rwanda after. After 1994, it’s a great country with a good leadership, and we’re being proud of being Rwandans”
Interesting quick read.
“ the UN was there watching people get killed, because they were afraid. They took their planes, they went abroad with their dogs. Instead of protecting the citizens who were killed, they evacuated their dogs. I lost all my uncles. I don’t consider Rwanda before 1994. I just consider Rwanda after. After 1994, it’s a great country with a good leadership, and we’re being proud of being Rwandans”
Edited by jdw100 on Tuesday 23 April 02:00
S600BSB said:
Media in France reporting that the National Audit Office has estimated it will cost the UK £540 million to deport the first 300 migrants – nearly £2 million per person.
Furthermore, someone mentioned on Times Radio that more people crossed the channel last weekend than the total amount projected to be deported to Rwanda in a year, & also pointed out that the returns will diminish even further during warm settled summer weather.Surely it would make more sense to send someone with a Stanley knife over to France to slash the boats & also to build a tent camp processing facility on an exposed, remote Scottish island - the inmates would soon clamour to return home.
272BHP said:
Good to see the French police push a boat back and physically stop a migrant launch live on BBC this morning.
Yet now it's footage of them stood on a beach watching them struggle to start the outboard and then slowly drifting towards the UK.I can only presume this bill has been passed because they all know it won't actually do anything other than possibly give an opportunity for a couple of empty planes to fly to Rwanda for photo ops.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff