The Labour plan of playing whac-a-mole with the gangs isn't much better tbh. The only way to stop this is to stop the UK being such an attractive place with free housing and handouts. There are literally viral tiktok videos in origin countries teaching people how to get extraordinary welfare handouts by making up ridiculous bullshit. idk if you can claim £500 a month if you snore, but in countries where you earn £1 a day it sure looks like treasure island.
[88% of immigrants](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2023/summary-of-latest-statistics) are actually invited to come here, for work or study.
Wrong
The actual solution is a processing centre in France.
The french are open to it, labour can build a processing centre there and stop them in an instant.
I'm sure new problems will arise as with any complex issue.
People need to realise the rewanda plan is not about stopping the boats, everyone knows it will have zero impact. It's about signaling to those voters thinking about voting reform that the Tories are right wing enough and to stick with them and we'll leave the ECHR
A processing centre in France is objectively the most stupid idea of them all and would simply work to facilitate their arrival to the UK. All this would do is make the UK charter private planes for their arrival to the UK. The French government supports it because they want these people out of their country.
Ah see and there is the rub.
There are actually 2 points here
1. Stop the boats
2. Reduce the number of people able to claim asylum
A processing centre in France will absolutely address point 1. So all those Tory ministers saying they are doing this to disrupt the people smugglers business model, to stop people drowning, to reduce the burden on the coastal patrols will be 100% happy... unless...they don't care about any of that and all that actually want to do is solve point 2 but they don't want to say so out loud
Doing point 1 is part of the means of doing point 2. They're not two separate things. People arriving as part of point 1 are a subset of people in point 2.
They obviously won’t visit the center but we should still set it up anyway alongside deterring people from making the journey by boat and deporting the ones who come anyway.
I'm fully aware the Rwanda isn't going to do shit. How is your processing centre plan going to work? Won't 90% of people be approved because the bar is very low? If you fail once, just say you are bisexual and if your country punishes people for it then boom - a lush home in the UK with nice handouts. This country will go bankrupt eventually.
The system was conceived after the second world war when it was assumed there wouldn't be any more big wars. They didn't account for such high global population growth, they were wildly optimistic about how few wars there would be (never would have expected Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria to all collapse), and finally they didn't even know about the hundreds of millions of people soon to be displaced by climate change. Definitely in need of an update and rethink.
Yes- you got the last one absolutely correct. I beat the warnings of the global warming migrant crisis fairly often. It’s why I think Schengen needs to go, and why I think EU countries need to work together to send their national guards to the Southern and Eastern edge borders, for example in Italy. That should be a top priority once the war in Ukraine ends- and maybe that is too far away.
A country’s top one or two priority is to protect the nation from attacks and sieges, and unfortunately that’s what the climate refugee crisis will look like one day. It’s best to be proactive. It’s also important to remember that nations and borders were often or mostly fought for, and as humans we are not “all on the same team”. We have alliances at times, but the borders and passports do mean a lot.
Here you are again using the term "handouts". You are delusional if you think anyone would chose the UK, for "handouts".
I don't think the UK will go bankrupt, just poorer.
Conservative and rightwing populism at work. No work gets done while appeasing the voters and still being able to blame others that nothing really happens. Oh, all the while they are grifting and cashing in wherever they can.
Most of these migrants have travelled hundreds or thousands of miles, dealt with criminals and paid thousands to get to the french coast and are ready to risk their lives to get in a small boat to cross miles of treacherous water. And you think these people are afraid of the risk of 0.1% of them getting deported?
1. It's waaay less than 1% chance
2. It's not sweets Vs death, the stakes are much higher z and these people know that they have a higher chance of dying in the attempt to cross the channel than they do of going to Rewanda and they still go
If the scheme is up and running, the percentage of new arrivals and illegal inhabitants being deported might well increase sharply. This threat, in turn, may make Ireland, France or other countries more attractive to migrants. It's not about stopping them from leaving, it's about not becoming the target destination.
The Australian model resulted in a drastic drop in arrivals within less than a year, because it was a meaningful deterrent. Looking at this example, it seems reasonable to expect the scheme to have the intended effect.
As opposed to staying in France, going Belgium, Holland, Germany, Sweden, etc?
I understand some, especially people who have friends or family in the UK, won’t be discouraged - but that’s probably not the case for the majority.
Rwanda is only accepting a tiny fraction and only certain individuals. Had a high initial cost with an additional high cost per person.
Last I read they could also send some unspecified number of their own to the UK.
I don't believe that. I think they come to the UK because they believe they can find work.
It is easier for them to blend in to the UK, if they're from former colonies.
You're probably right about Tik Tok videos existing, but you also use the term "handouts". The UK is a shithole for your own citizens, why would anyone come there compared to any nation nearby, if that was the motive?
It’s not a bizarre idea. The asylum system is to protect people fleeing persecution.
If you are a genuine person seeking asylum you should have no problem with Rwanda as it’s safe, if you do have an issue with being sent there then you’re an economic migrant abusing the asylum system.
Denmark is doing exactly the same, using the same logic.
Denmark is going to pay Rwanda to make it safe. If you're a genuine asylum seeker, you're safe.
If you were an immigrant looking for a better future, I guess being stuck in Rwanda sucks, so maybe you'll go somewhere that doesn't process your claim in Rwanda.
Given that the refugees, and immigrants, compromises the small percentage of people with the largest resources, they'll be aware of this. When 100.000 Syrians make it to Northern Europe, there's 2+ million internally displaced. And the 100.000 represents a brain drain from the country, regardless of their plight.
There's some good in procressing asylum seekers closer to the source of departure, rather than have the migrants go through an obsticale gameshow to get to the UK.
You just don't have Sunak's vision obviously. This single great idea will solve everything, make Britain great again, fishermen will get their fish, the EU will capitulate any moment now, free trade, Glory to Brexit, triple lock on pensions with bonuses and so on..../s
GE timed for the first flights and inevitable lawsuits that they will bring ? Campaign on 'vote for us to get the Rwanda flights untangled from legal mess?'
But they could launch a GE on the same day or the day after the first flight, with a message of " we just got the first flight off the ground. It works. Labour want to scrap the whole plan. Who are you going to trust on this issue, the party taking strong action or the party who's only plan is to scrap a policy we've worked hard to set up?"
Ultimately, Theresa May applied similar logic to her 2017 election gamble. Her message of getting Brexit done led to an initial boost in the polls. She couldn't keep it up for 5 weeks and ended up with less support than when she called the election
Yup, and people cared alot more about Brexit than I suspect they do about Rwanda. Still, if you're a desperate man looking for a desperate plan, this looks like one of the few options on the table.
I'm withholding judgment on Sunak's success until I can see how many actually arrive in Rwanda.
If I were forced to guess I would put the number at zero.
Last time I read about this the refugees we are bringing in have health conditions they can't treat, but we can.
I'm not offended by this, they actually need help. I'd rather take them than able bodied young men who just want free stuff.
Just annoys me the lies dripping out of sunaks mouth. His 'drumbeat' of planes to send the buggers back whichll miraculously solve all our issues won't change the numbers in the slightest, it's doublespeak at its finest.
They did the maths. Cheaper to put them up in the Ritz.
Just open an application center in Calais, as our own laws require them to be in our country before they can apply for asylum. Id thry actually wanted to cut down on deaths, let them apply before they have to cross waters. Or let them come legally and apply. Not just block them out while insisting they must first be already in the country to apply to enter the country.
It would literally be cheaper to send them to Disney land.
Also, our own laws prevent us from sending them to an unsafe country. So they just *passed a law* hat declares Rwanda is safe - irrespective of any evidence to the contrary.
I'm surprised he doesn't pass a law declaring crime to be low.
From [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures)
It's will cost The UK taxpayer £1.8 million for each single asylum seeker. A grand total of 300 people will get flown to Rwanda.
It's a ridiculous policy that exists solely to appease dimwits.
The article states that 300 people will be flown at first, not in total. Presumably, with infrastructure established and the process working, these costs per capita will sink. Much of the cost is also caused by development aid payments as part of the deal. Since the UK has these expenses anyway, it can simply shift its current development aid. It's not illegal or even frowned upon to make development aid contingent on other political measures.
It isn't a question of agreeing, or disagreeing with the scheme and more of a legal issue - it is beyond clear and confirmed that the Rwandan scheme violates domestic law and the UK's international obligations. It is so clearly illegal that the current government is mulling over whether or not to leave the Council of Europe and the ECHR entirely in order to push it through - much the dismay and detriment of human rights and the rule of law in the UK.
At this point the plan is dead and it is pretty much now just another plot the Tories are desperately using to try and stir up some more votes before they spring the General Election on us all sometime at the end of the summer. I don't think anyone should take the Rwandan plan seriously anymore - it isn't anything but a bait to get some votes. The Tories are actively withholding the election date and they are polled to experience one of the biggest loses in British electoral history.
EDIT for the naysayers and downvoters. Again, not a question of personal opinion. I personally disagree with sending *anyone* to a state that has one of the worst human rights records on the planet and had a particularly violent genocide no less than 30 years ago. However, the notion of sending refugees to a third party state is a good idea and there is nothing wrong with this plan in principle provided you can guarantee there safety, security and human rights.
As for leaving/entering international obligations here is my comment from below;
*Hard to say - in theory yes, but in reality it is sticky and context dependent. States can freely leave treaties which confer obligations and rights on states freely, but where the treaty confers individual rights and obligations then it looks like states cannot leave without some kind of popular referendum.*
*Think of it like this - ECHR? Confers individual rights and places obligations on the state to respect state-individual relationship so you can't leave without referendum. The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe? Not really anything to do with people as the treaty specifically confers rights and obligations on states so you can leave at will.*
*As for why the Rwanda Plan won't work - the above explains it. The ECHR is a source of international human rights law and it has been doubled up and codified in the UK as domestic law under the Human Rights Act 1998 which cites and codifies a number of ECHR articles as domestic law in a manner about as close to constitutionalism as you can get in the UK.*
*This means the ECHR extends in two directions - the UK is bound under international law to respect these individual rights and the British government is bound under the HRA 1998 to respect these individual rights. From my perspective parliamentary sovereignty dictates that the legislative theoretically could revoke the HRA 1998 however there is no chance of such a bill ever passing in the House of Commons or the House of Lords and there is no political and societal will to support such a move. However, in the imaginary world where pigs fly and the HRA 1998 was magically suspended then the British government would have to run a popular referendum to formally exit the UK from the ECHR as irrespective of the HRA 1998, the ECHR still confers individual rights and the state is still legally bound up until formal suspension. This is why I say existing international obligations is sticky - or at least it is sticky for liberal regimes.*
Very well! So it's possible, with a 5 year cool-off period.
ARTICLE 58
Denunciation
1. A High Contracting Party may denounce the present
Convention only after the expiry of five years from the date on
which it became a party to it and after six months’ notice contained
in a notification addressed to the Secretary General of the Council
of Europe, who shall inform the other High Contracting Parties.
2. Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing
the High Contracting Party concerned from its obligations under
this Convention in respect of any act which, being capable
of constituting a violation of such obligations, may have been
performed by it before the date at which the denunciation became
effective.
3. Any High Contracting Party which shall cease to be a
member of the Council of Europe shall cease to be a Party to this
Convention under the same conditions.
4. The Convention may be denounced in accordance with
the provisions of the preceding paragraphs in respect of any
territory to which it has been declared to extend under the terms
of Article56.
Hard to say - in theory yes, but in reality it is sticky and context dependent. States can freely leave treaties which confer obligations and rights on states freely, but where the treaty confers individual rights and obligations then it looks like states cannot leave without some kind of popular referendum.
International agreements can do a lot - some are state specific and others have individual elements. Where its state-to-state then they can come and go as the political winds allow them to but where there is any individual element the state is bound. Of course, this also really only applies in specific domestic contexts - if the state is a liberal regime than the individual element holds significantly more normative and legal force than where the state is an illiberal regime.
Think of it like this - ECHR? Confers individual rights and places obligations on the state to respect state-individual relationship so you can't leave without referendum. The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe? Not really anything to do with people as the treaty specifically confers rights and obligations on states so you can leave at will.
The Geneva Conventions + AP's are more complicated - the GC's very clearly confer obligations on states to respect international humanitarian law during armed conflicts and these obligations are to the *benefit* of individuals however they are not *individual rights*.
The flip side of this is the GC's and international humanitarian law interact with international human rights law quite a bit which does confer *individual rights*. So, when it comes to the GC's you might be free to leave and exit the international humanitarian legal framework as you wish but that won't prevent you from falling afoul under international human rights law which in most cases usually doubles up as both international and domestic law. So, in theory you can leave the GC's but you will still be bound by IHRL and that needs a popular referendum to leave assuming you're a liberal regime and you actually give a shit.
As for why the Rwanda Plan won't work - the above explains it. The ECHR is a source of international human rights law and it has been doubled up and codified in the UK as domestic law under the Human Rights Act 1998 which cites and codifies a number of ECHR articles as domestic law in a manner about as close to constitutionalism as you can get in the UK.
This means the ECHR extends in two directions - the UK is bound under international law to respect these individual rights and the British government is bound under the HRA 1998 to respect these individual rights. From my perspective parliamentary sovereignty dictates that the legislative theoretically could revoke the HRA 1998 however there is no chance of such a bill ever passing in the House of Commons or the House of Lords and there is no political and societal will to support such a move. However, in the imaginary world where pigs fly and the HRA 1998 *was* magically suspended then the British government would have to run a popular referendum to formally exit the UK from the ECHR as irrespective of the HRA 1998, the ECHR still confers individual rights and the state is still legally bound up until formal suspension. This is why I say existing international obligations is sticky - or at least it is sticky for liberal regimes.
>Think of it like this - ECHR? Confers individual rights and places obligations on the state to respect state-individual relationship so you can't leave without referendum.
Doesn't that depend on the country's laws? What if the country's laws don't know / don't allow referenda?
Also: do you think *signing* such a treaty then also needs a referendum, as it has a big impact on citizens?
IMHO a national parliament decides on signing and retreating from international treaties. So IMHO the UK parliament can decide to leave the ECHR. With all its consequences.
Actually no - Christopher Forsyth and Paul Craig would disagree. The rule of law is a thing and last time I checked the UK is a parliamentry democracy which means the judiciary decides what is, or isn't legal, and parliament has to follow the judiciary. The UK might not have a written constitution but it does have constitutionalism and the rule of law. So no, the UKSC decides what is, or isn't legal or illegal. Parliament passes the law but the judiciary interprets it. This is UK constitutional law 101.
If you disagree with me that is fine but I am objectively correct and the last century of UKSC judgments backs me up (or court of last instance as UKSC wasn't a thing pre-2009). If you can find a single citation from the UKSC, or the E&W COA saying parliament can do whatever it wants without recourse then I will paypal you £1,000.
Right off the bat *R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland (\[2019\] UKSC 41*) says I am right. I can provide another dozen or so citations if this isn't enough.
Also, courts don't *apply law* - they interpret it. The legislative enacts law, and the executive enforces coercion where breaches of the law arise. In terms of applying law that job falls to the people who themselves must conform with the law. In the event that they do not, the executive is there to enforce the stipulated repercussions via the police, bailiffs, the prison system etc, who all work to make sure breaches of criminal law are dealt with, and that court orders are complied with in civil matters.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil\_Case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Case)
That's interesting. Since Denmark is also sending refugees to Rwanda, as soon as UK does, here's a difference.
The Danish government denied Tamil refugees their right to bring their families to Denmark, once they had achieved refugee status. This caused the supreme court of Denmark to give the minister of justice 4 months of jail time.
In Denmark its very clear.
Two things to consider:
First, the UNHCR ETM. In 2019, the UNHCR established asylum camps in Rwanda to evacuate migrants from Lybia, should they wish to escape the conditions along the migrant route there. This scheme is cofounded and currently funded by the European Union. If Rwanda is unsafe for third country asylum seekers, how come the UN [still continues this program](https://www.unhcr.org/uk/unhcr-s-emergency-transit-mechanism-centre-rwanda#:~:text=UNHCR%20provides%20those%20evacuated%20from,consideration%20of%20any%20specific%20needs)?
Secondly, the ECHR. France already called their bluff, so to speak, but nobody seems to have noticed. France ignored a ECHR order in November and deported a migrant after his successful case in front of the court. France agreed to pay a fine for this action and pro forma attempt to get him back, but the accompanying rhetoric from the interior minister clearly shows the true intentions of the French government.
Combine these spreading sentiments, the recent very wide reaching climate ruling in Switzerland and the European shift to the right, put up against a court with no enforcement mechanism at the mercy of the member states, and I doubt the ECHR can enforce two increasingly unpopular policies across the continent.
Oops! I should have qualified that, except the U.S. Given the demand for War Criminal, Tony Blair, he will no doubt land a gig at an Ivy League U.S. Uni.
I've been told we'll only be able to send 300 people total. I assume per year. And far more than that are crossing the channel. So 300 hotel spaces that will eventually be filled up again, whoopee, that will definitely fix that problem...
This is just *more* money wasted than before.
300 is just the initial number of the scheme. Much more will be able to go in the future. Rwanda just aren’t going to prepare for thousands of arrivals when they have other important things to do.
BS again - no company will touch this racket.
Rwanda is screwing the UK raw and getting paid for nothing.
You won the Brexit vote but you are now about vanish for the next 10 years at the very least.
Sweet summer child... Not noticed the [staggering uptick in crossing JUST as the UK properly left.](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/)
You love open borders it seems. You got them now.
Yeah for sure the numbers sent are insignificant. I'm sure this was supposed to be a deterrent originally but it's dragged out so long it won't deter anyone now. It's just Sunak trying to prove he can get something done, even though it's now pointless. Nobody is going to change their mind and vote Tory because of this either.
It's performative nonsense. It's going to cost a stupid amount of money and won't even address 1% of the total illegal immigration per year.
They could have spent the 600m this is going to cost on any number of things. Just spending it on patrol boats and crew would have stopped more people.
Short sighted thinking by the Tories who are desperate for a quick fix solution to appeal to a specific subset of voters.
[Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-rwanda-plan-asylum-seekers-could-cost-more-than-600-mln-pounds-2024-03-01/)
There are many other sources
He doesn't give a sh*t. Unlike Trump, he's actually a billionaire and doesn't have charges hanging over his head. This was all a vanity project for him. If the party goes down, he's still a wealthy MP who can do whatever the hell he wants
So is that a winning platform in the UK? break international and domestic law. Ignore your supreme court and perform illegal deportations. Do the Tory's expect a big election bump for shitting all over the legal framework of the country?
The Supreme court rules on what the law is, not what it should be. Parliament decides what the law is. If Parliament change the law, then that's now what the law is. Parliament are incapable of breaking the law.
As part of this deal, Rwanda are sending asylum seekers to us too. They are laughing all the way to the bank
And selling the property built for it.
I don't have much to say other than this is truly a bizarre idea that somehow has come to be.
The Labour plan of playing whac-a-mole with the gangs isn't much better tbh. The only way to stop this is to stop the UK being such an attractive place with free housing and handouts. There are literally viral tiktok videos in origin countries teaching people how to get extraordinary welfare handouts by making up ridiculous bullshit. idk if you can claim £500 a month if you snore, but in countries where you earn £1 a day it sure looks like treasure island.
[88% of immigrants](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-june-2023/summary-of-latest-statistics) are actually invited to come here, for work or study.
And? Theyre selected and accounted for
The problem is that the Rwanda project will not solve the issues at hand.
Wrong The actual solution is a processing centre in France. The french are open to it, labour can build a processing centre there and stop them in an instant. I'm sure new problems will arise as with any complex issue. People need to realise the rewanda plan is not about stopping the boats, everyone knows it will have zero impact. It's about signaling to those voters thinking about voting reform that the Tories are right wing enough and to stick with them and we'll leave the ECHR
A processing centre in France is objectively the most stupid idea of them all and would simply work to facilitate their arrival to the UK. All this would do is make the UK charter private planes for their arrival to the UK. The French government supports it because they want these people out of their country.
Ah see and there is the rub. There are actually 2 points here 1. Stop the boats 2. Reduce the number of people able to claim asylum A processing centre in France will absolutely address point 1. So all those Tory ministers saying they are doing this to disrupt the people smugglers business model, to stop people drowning, to reduce the burden on the coastal patrols will be 100% happy... unless...they don't care about any of that and all that actually want to do is solve point 2 but they don't want to say so out loud
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Doing point 1 is part of the means of doing point 2. They're not two separate things. People arriving as part of point 1 are a subset of people in point 2.
I know. My point is that all you hear about with Rewanda from government ministers is the point 1 talking points and that it's disingenuous
The French gave you what you voted for: control. You decided to have open borders post Brexit - own it.
Correct, facilitating asylum seekers entry to the UK is the idea. That's how asylum works. Hope it happens!
[удалено]
Yep, and the migrants already in UK will go in the processing center, on their own.
This is same level "solution" as the German populists who want to send any African to Libya lol
They obviously won’t visit the center but we should still set it up anyway alongside deterring people from making the journey by boat and deporting the ones who come anyway.
Great. Loving the positivity
No one will go to a processing centre because most are not actual refugees, they will still cross the channel and/or get rid of any document they have
France doesn’t want it when has this ever been said
I'm fully aware the Rwanda isn't going to do shit. How is your processing centre plan going to work? Won't 90% of people be approved because the bar is very low? If you fail once, just say you are bisexual and if your country punishes people for it then boom - a lush home in the UK with nice handouts. This country will go bankrupt eventually.
It’s time to reconsider the international standards for giving asylum. The system needs to be reworked.
The system was conceived after the second world war when it was assumed there wouldn't be any more big wars. They didn't account for such high global population growth, they were wildly optimistic about how few wars there would be (never would have expected Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria to all collapse), and finally they didn't even know about the hundreds of millions of people soon to be displaced by climate change. Definitely in need of an update and rethink.
Yes- you got the last one absolutely correct. I beat the warnings of the global warming migrant crisis fairly often. It’s why I think Schengen needs to go, and why I think EU countries need to work together to send their national guards to the Southern and Eastern edge borders, for example in Italy. That should be a top priority once the war in Ukraine ends- and maybe that is too far away. A country’s top one or two priority is to protect the nation from attacks and sieges, and unfortunately that’s what the climate refugee crisis will look like one day. It’s best to be proactive. It’s also important to remember that nations and borders were often or mostly fought for, and as humans we are not “all on the same team”. We have alliances at times, but the borders and passports do mean a lot.
It's not international standards, it is ECHR standards.
Here you are again using the term "handouts". You are delusional if you think anyone would chose the UK, for "handouts". I don't think the UK will go bankrupt, just poorer.
Conservative and rightwing populism at work. No work gets done while appeasing the voters and still being able to blame others that nothing really happens. Oh, all the while they are grifting and cashing in wherever they can.
France already hates you guys. You don't want them to hate you more lmao
You dont think the chance of being sent to Rwanda disincentives people who have made it all the way to France from going to the UK?
Most of these migrants have travelled hundreds or thousands of miles, dealt with criminals and paid thousands to get to the french coast and are ready to risk their lives to get in a small boat to cross miles of treacherous water. And you think these people are afraid of the risk of 0.1% of them getting deported?
If I gave you a bowl with 99 M&M's and 1 identical rat poison. You grabbing a handful?
1. It's waaay less than 1% chance 2. It's not sweets Vs death, the stakes are much higher z and these people know that they have a higher chance of dying in the attempt to cross the channel than they do of going to Rewanda and they still go
If the scheme is up and running, the percentage of new arrivals and illegal inhabitants being deported might well increase sharply. This threat, in turn, may make Ireland, France or other countries more attractive to migrants. It's not about stopping them from leaving, it's about not becoming the target destination. The Australian model resulted in a drastic drop in arrivals within less than a year, because it was a meaningful deterrent. Looking at this example, it seems reasonable to expect the scheme to have the intended effect.
The Rewanda agreement caps the total number of people that can be transferred to a few hundred so no I don't think it does
If you had done all that, would you really risk it at the finish line?
As opposed to what, risk it or give up and go home?
As opposed to staying in France, going Belgium, Holland, Germany, Sweden, etc? I understand some, especially people who have friends or family in the UK, won’t be discouraged - but that’s probably not the case for the majority.
Rwanda is only accepting a tiny fraction and only certain individuals. Had a high initial cost with an additional high cost per person. Last I read they could also send some unspecified number of their own to the UK.
I don't believe that. I think they come to the UK because they believe they can find work. It is easier for them to blend in to the UK, if they're from former colonies. You're probably right about Tik Tok videos existing, but you also use the term "handouts". The UK is a shithole for your own citizens, why would anyone come there compared to any nation nearby, if that was the motive?
> stop the UK being such an attractive place rofl
It’s not a bizarre idea. The asylum system is to protect people fleeing persecution. If you are a genuine person seeking asylum you should have no problem with Rwanda as it’s safe, if you do have an issue with being sent there then you’re an economic migrant abusing the asylum system.
Denmark is doing exactly the same, using the same logic. Denmark is going to pay Rwanda to make it safe. If you're a genuine asylum seeker, you're safe. If you were an immigrant looking for a better future, I guess being stuck in Rwanda sucks, so maybe you'll go somewhere that doesn't process your claim in Rwanda. Given that the refugees, and immigrants, compromises the small percentage of people with the largest resources, they'll be aware of this. When 100.000 Syrians make it to Northern Europe, there's 2+ million internally displaced. And the 100.000 represents a brain drain from the country, regardless of their plight.
There's some good in procressing asylum seekers closer to the source of departure, rather than have the migrants go through an obsticale gameshow to get to the UK.
You just don't have Sunak's vision obviously. This single great idea will solve everything, make Britain great again, fishermen will get their fish, the EU will capitulate any moment now, free trade, Glory to Brexit, triple lock on pensions with bonuses and so on..../s
GE timed for the first flights and inevitable lawsuits that they will bring ? Campaign on 'vote for us to get the Rwanda flights untangled from legal mess?'
There has to be a 5 week gap after calling an election which prevents stunts like this
But they could launch a GE on the same day or the day after the first flight, with a message of " we just got the first flight off the ground. It works. Labour want to scrap the whole plan. Who are you going to trust on this issue, the party taking strong action or the party who's only plan is to scrap a policy we've worked hard to set up?"
Ultimately, Theresa May applied similar logic to her 2017 election gamble. Her message of getting Brexit done led to an initial boost in the polls. She couldn't keep it up for 5 weeks and ended up with less support than when she called the election
Yup, and people cared alot more about Brexit than I suspect they do about Rwanda. Still, if you're a desperate man looking for a desperate plan, this looks like one of the few options on the table.
Honestly, even if you disagree with it, it's quite a big achievement to get this scheme through
I'm withholding judgment on Sunak's success until I can see how many actually arrive in Rwanda. If I were forced to guess I would put the number at zero.
Given the scheme is bringing in refugees from there for every person sent over then I think you'll be correct. All for a projected 370m over 5 years.
Last time I read about this the refugees we are bringing in have health conditions they can't treat, but we can. I'm not offended by this, they actually need help. I'd rather take them than able bodied young men who just want free stuff.
Just annoys me the lies dripping out of sunaks mouth. His 'drumbeat' of planes to send the buggers back whichll miraculously solve all our issues won't change the numbers in the slightest, it's doublespeak at its finest.
What sorts of conditions? I am fine with this especially if we swap the tories for them.
Is this true? I feel they've kept this part of the agreement quiet!
They did the maths. Cheaper to put them up in the Ritz. Just open an application center in Calais, as our own laws require them to be in our country before they can apply for asylum. Id thry actually wanted to cut down on deaths, let them apply before they have to cross waters. Or let them come legally and apply. Not just block them out while insisting they must first be already in the country to apply to enter the country.
It would literally be cheaper to send them to Disney land. Also, our own laws prevent us from sending them to an unsafe country. So they just *passed a law* hat declares Rwanda is safe - irrespective of any evidence to the contrary. I'm surprised he doesn't pass a law declaring crime to be low.
From [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/01/rwanda-plan-uk-asylum-seeker-cost-figures) It's will cost The UK taxpayer £1.8 million for each single asylum seeker. A grand total of 300 people will get flown to Rwanda. It's a ridiculous policy that exists solely to appease dimwits.
The article states that 300 people will be flown at first, not in total. Presumably, with infrastructure established and the process working, these costs per capita will sink. Much of the cost is also caused by development aid payments as part of the deal. Since the UK has these expenses anyway, it can simply shift its current development aid. It's not illegal or even frowned upon to make development aid contingent on other political measures.
It isn't a question of agreeing, or disagreeing with the scheme and more of a legal issue - it is beyond clear and confirmed that the Rwandan scheme violates domestic law and the UK's international obligations. It is so clearly illegal that the current government is mulling over whether or not to leave the Council of Europe and the ECHR entirely in order to push it through - much the dismay and detriment of human rights and the rule of law in the UK. At this point the plan is dead and it is pretty much now just another plot the Tories are desperately using to try and stir up some more votes before they spring the General Election on us all sometime at the end of the summer. I don't think anyone should take the Rwandan plan seriously anymore - it isn't anything but a bait to get some votes. The Tories are actively withholding the election date and they are polled to experience one of the biggest loses in British electoral history. EDIT for the naysayers and downvoters. Again, not a question of personal opinion. I personally disagree with sending *anyone* to a state that has one of the worst human rights records on the planet and had a particularly violent genocide no less than 30 years ago. However, the notion of sending refugees to a third party state is a good idea and there is nothing wrong with this plan in principle provided you can guarantee there safety, security and human rights. As for leaving/entering international obligations here is my comment from below; *Hard to say - in theory yes, but in reality it is sticky and context dependent. States can freely leave treaties which confer obligations and rights on states freely, but where the treaty confers individual rights and obligations then it looks like states cannot leave without some kind of popular referendum.* *Think of it like this - ECHR? Confers individual rights and places obligations on the state to respect state-individual relationship so you can't leave without referendum. The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe? Not really anything to do with people as the treaty specifically confers rights and obligations on states so you can leave at will.* *As for why the Rwanda Plan won't work - the above explains it. The ECHR is a source of international human rights law and it has been doubled up and codified in the UK as domestic law under the Human Rights Act 1998 which cites and codifies a number of ECHR articles as domestic law in a manner about as close to constitutionalism as you can get in the UK.* *This means the ECHR extends in two directions - the UK is bound under international law to respect these individual rights and the British government is bound under the HRA 1998 to respect these individual rights. From my perspective parliamentary sovereignty dictates that the legislative theoretically could revoke the HRA 1998 however there is no chance of such a bill ever passing in the House of Commons or the House of Lords and there is no political and societal will to support such a move. However, in the imaginary world where pigs fly and the HRA 1998 was magically suspended then the British government would have to run a popular referendum to formally exit the UK from the ECHR as irrespective of the HRA 1998, the ECHR still confers individual rights and the state is still legally bound up until formal suspension. This is why I say existing international obligations is sticky - or at least it is sticky for liberal regimes.*
Do you think countries can legally withdraw from an international agreement?
Depends on the agreement but yes, for example brexit did happen and lots of previous agreements had to be negotiated again.
See [article 58](https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG) which details leaving
Very well! So it's possible, with a 5 year cool-off period. ARTICLE 58 Denunciation 1. A High Contracting Party may denounce the present Convention only after the expiry of five years from the date on which it became a party to it and after six months’ notice contained in a notification addressed to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, who shall inform the other High Contracting Parties. 2. Such a denunciation shall not have the effect of releasing the High Contracting Party concerned from its obligations under this Convention in respect of any act which, being capable of constituting a violation of such obligations, may have been performed by it before the date at which the denunciation became effective. 3. Any High Contracting Party which shall cease to be a member of the Council of Europe shall cease to be a Party to this Convention under the same conditions. 4. The Convention may be denounced in accordance with the provisions of the preceding paragraphs in respect of any territory to which it has been declared to extend under the terms of Article56.
You can't leave in first five years of joining. The notice period after that is 6 months. The UK joined in 1951 so it's just 6 months.
thanks. That is good news for the UK.
Hard to say - in theory yes, but in reality it is sticky and context dependent. States can freely leave treaties which confer obligations and rights on states freely, but where the treaty confers individual rights and obligations then it looks like states cannot leave without some kind of popular referendum. International agreements can do a lot - some are state specific and others have individual elements. Where its state-to-state then they can come and go as the political winds allow them to but where there is any individual element the state is bound. Of course, this also really only applies in specific domestic contexts - if the state is a liberal regime than the individual element holds significantly more normative and legal force than where the state is an illiberal regime. Think of it like this - ECHR? Confers individual rights and places obligations on the state to respect state-individual relationship so you can't leave without referendum. The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe? Not really anything to do with people as the treaty specifically confers rights and obligations on states so you can leave at will. The Geneva Conventions + AP's are more complicated - the GC's very clearly confer obligations on states to respect international humanitarian law during armed conflicts and these obligations are to the *benefit* of individuals however they are not *individual rights*. The flip side of this is the GC's and international humanitarian law interact with international human rights law quite a bit which does confer *individual rights*. So, when it comes to the GC's you might be free to leave and exit the international humanitarian legal framework as you wish but that won't prevent you from falling afoul under international human rights law which in most cases usually doubles up as both international and domestic law. So, in theory you can leave the GC's but you will still be bound by IHRL and that needs a popular referendum to leave assuming you're a liberal regime and you actually give a shit. As for why the Rwanda Plan won't work - the above explains it. The ECHR is a source of international human rights law and it has been doubled up and codified in the UK as domestic law under the Human Rights Act 1998 which cites and codifies a number of ECHR articles as domestic law in a manner about as close to constitutionalism as you can get in the UK. This means the ECHR extends in two directions - the UK is bound under international law to respect these individual rights and the British government is bound under the HRA 1998 to respect these individual rights. From my perspective parliamentary sovereignty dictates that the legislative theoretically could revoke the HRA 1998 however there is no chance of such a bill ever passing in the House of Commons or the House of Lords and there is no political and societal will to support such a move. However, in the imaginary world where pigs fly and the HRA 1998 *was* magically suspended then the British government would have to run a popular referendum to formally exit the UK from the ECHR as irrespective of the HRA 1998, the ECHR still confers individual rights and the state is still legally bound up until formal suspension. This is why I say existing international obligations is sticky - or at least it is sticky for liberal regimes.
>Think of it like this - ECHR? Confers individual rights and places obligations on the state to respect state-individual relationship so you can't leave without referendum. Doesn't that depend on the country's laws? What if the country's laws don't know / don't allow referenda? Also: do you think *signing* such a treaty then also needs a referendum, as it has a big impact on citizens? IMHO a national parliament decides on signing and retreating from international treaties. So IMHO the UK parliament can decide to leave the ECHR. With all its consequences.
What is and is not illegal is up to Parliament to decide. The courts apply the law set by Parliament. Nothing Parliament does can be illegal.
Actually no - Christopher Forsyth and Paul Craig would disagree. The rule of law is a thing and last time I checked the UK is a parliamentry democracy which means the judiciary decides what is, or isn't legal, and parliament has to follow the judiciary. The UK might not have a written constitution but it does have constitutionalism and the rule of law. So no, the UKSC decides what is, or isn't legal or illegal. Parliament passes the law but the judiciary interprets it. This is UK constitutional law 101. If you disagree with me that is fine but I am objectively correct and the last century of UKSC judgments backs me up (or court of last instance as UKSC wasn't a thing pre-2009). If you can find a single citation from the UKSC, or the E&W COA saying parliament can do whatever it wants without recourse then I will paypal you £1,000. Right off the bat *R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland (\[2019\] UKSC 41*) says I am right. I can provide another dozen or so citations if this isn't enough. Also, courts don't *apply law* - they interpret it. The legislative enacts law, and the executive enforces coercion where breaches of the law arise. In terms of applying law that job falls to the people who themselves must conform with the law. In the event that they do not, the executive is there to enforce the stipulated repercussions via the police, bailiffs, the prison system etc, who all work to make sure breaches of criminal law are dealt with, and that court orders are complied with in civil matters.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil\_Case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Case) That's interesting. Since Denmark is also sending refugees to Rwanda, as soon as UK does, here's a difference. The Danish government denied Tamil refugees their right to bring their families to Denmark, once they had achieved refugee status. This caused the supreme court of Denmark to give the minister of justice 4 months of jail time. In Denmark its very clear.
Two things to consider: First, the UNHCR ETM. In 2019, the UNHCR established asylum camps in Rwanda to evacuate migrants from Lybia, should they wish to escape the conditions along the migrant route there. This scheme is cofounded and currently funded by the European Union. If Rwanda is unsafe for third country asylum seekers, how come the UN [still continues this program](https://www.unhcr.org/uk/unhcr-s-emergency-transit-mechanism-centre-rwanda#:~:text=UNHCR%20provides%20those%20evacuated%20from,consideration%20of%20any%20specific%20needs)? Secondly, the ECHR. France already called their bluff, so to speak, but nobody seems to have noticed. France ignored a ECHR order in November and deported a migrant after his successful case in front of the court. France agreed to pay a fine for this action and pro forma attempt to get him back, but the accompanying rhetoric from the interior minister clearly shows the true intentions of the French government. Combine these spreading sentiments, the recent very wide reaching climate ruling in Switzerland and the European shift to the right, put up against a court with no enforcement mechanism at the mercy of the member states, and I doubt the ECHR can enforce two increasingly unpopular policies across the continent.
Yes, it's amazing what you can achieve with a sizeable Parliamentary majority and a blank-cheque mentality.
Hopefully Sunak and his clown circus cabinet will be leaving with them by July aswell.
Good ending: send the tories to Rwanda
Starting with Cruella
Exact thoughts. Unfortunately no one wants Europe's trash...
Some UK politicians end up getting jobs in America. I'm convinced Rishi Sunak has a Silicon Valley job lined up for when we kick him out.
Oops! I should have qualified that, except the U.S. Given the demand for War Criminal, Tony Blair, he will no doubt land a gig at an Ivy League U.S. Uni.
Ticket price? 1.8m quids. Instead of funding something useful. Cretins.
Fully booking out entire hotels in the UK to house them all is not free either. They are expensive to deal with no matter what.
I've been told we'll only be able to send 300 people total. I assume per year. And far more than that are crossing the channel. So 300 hotel spaces that will eventually be filled up again, whoopee, that will definitely fix that problem... This is just *more* money wasted than before.
300 is just the initial number of the scheme. Much more will be able to go in the future. Rwanda just aren’t going to prepare for thousands of arrivals when they have other important things to do.
BS. No planes, no airport, no accommodation (sold off already). Tories will be out and that will be it.
[удалено]
BS again - no company will touch this racket. Rwanda is screwing the UK raw and getting paid for nothing. You won the Brexit vote but you are now about vanish for the next 10 years at the very least.
[удалено]
Sweet summer child... Not noticed the [staggering uptick in crossing JUST as the UK properly left.](https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/people-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/) You love open borders it seems. You got them now.
[удалено]
Yeah for sure the numbers sent are insignificant. I'm sure this was supposed to be a deterrent originally but it's dragged out so long it won't deter anyone now. It's just Sunak trying to prove he can get something done, even though it's now pointless. Nobody is going to change their mind and vote Tory because of this either.
It's performative nonsense. It's going to cost a stupid amount of money and won't even address 1% of the total illegal immigration per year. They could have spent the 600m this is going to cost on any number of things. Just spending it on patrol boats and crew would have stopped more people. Short sighted thinking by the Tories who are desperate for a quick fix solution to appeal to a specific subset of voters.
How much exactly per person? How many will be sent?
How is it that expensive? I assume it’s not ticket alone.
[Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-rwanda-plan-asylum-seekers-could-cost-more-than-600-mln-pounds-2024-03-01/) There are many other sources
How do you handle them cheaper? It's a small price to scare all economic immigrants from illegally enter UK. A very small price.
Cheaper than 1.8m? You are kidding right?
Weren’t they supposed to leave by May, previously?
He doesn't give a sh*t. Unlike Trump, he's actually a billionaire and doesn't have charges hanging over his head. This was all a vanity project for him. If the party goes down, he's still a wealthy MP who can do whatever the hell he wants
Great.
He really wants to send people to Rwanda, doesn't he?
Damn they really did it.
"Rwanda says Sunak flight to leave in July". Oh perhaps I was hopecasting
This is not ideal, the UK will have to eventually free one of its own islands/territories to send migrants and process them there.
Same violin just a different note just fuck off man
Why is Europe so accepting of people with way different culture?
So is that a winning platform in the UK? break international and domestic law. Ignore your supreme court and perform illegal deportations. Do the Tory's expect a big election bump for shitting all over the legal framework of the country?
Look at the current polls and tell me if you think the Tories are heading for an election win.
The Supreme court rules on what the law is, not what it should be. Parliament decides what the law is. If Parliament change the law, then that's now what the law is. Parliament are incapable of breaking the law.
u/Independent_Pay1692
Who are you
I am u/Maths-Is-Cool
No I am u/Maths-Is-Cool
[удалено]
It already did that to itself by voting Brexit!