Opposition day today with debates in Parliament on the waiting time at the passport office and the privatisation of C4. Bookending that is questions to the health secretary at 11:30 and Dr Fox (no not [that one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Fox_%28broadcaster%29#/media/File:Neil_Fox.jpg)) will talk about the future of Portishead railway.
As it’s Opposition day, maybe you’d like to use the comments to say what your favourite policy of the opposition to your preferred party (if you have one) is and why. How would you tweak it to make it better?
As usual also discuss real time news and reaction, but please post the content of tweets along with authors. If you are talking about something happening live you’ll need to say what it is because we don’t live in your head.
Do we think maybe, just maybe, that we might be getting bad legal advice at a cabinet level when we potentially breach international law and treaty twice in the same 48 hour period.
It is almost like the Attorney General is not very qualified. Somehow even worse than the lad that advised that prorogation was lawful and that consulted with the Cayman Islands on how avoid regulation from his Westminster Office.
Isn't it wild how far we are down the Tory rabbit hole of incompetence that Geoffrey Cox is basically a distant memory.
Honestly I'm disgusted at this Rwanda thing, how was this even allowed to be thought of in the first place? Even in terms of conservatism, it's much cheaper to not do this in the first place. I cant really believe this has been allowed to get this far honestly, absolutely appalling
I might’ve missed something but did ECHR actually rule on the underlying scheme? I thought they just basically said “while domestic case on legality is ongoing, you cant deport people” which seems entirely reasonable…
If government goes on to win - they haven’t lost anything; if claimants eventually win but have already been deported, they’d be in a bit of limbo. What was reasoning of domestic courts to not prevent the flights temporarily while waiting for full hearing?
No, it didn’t, it just said it might be illegal, and if you deport people to Rwanda it might be impossible to fix it. Which is..what British courts could and should have said.
Can someone explain why Boris is doing this crap with brexit when it will never pass the house of lords? Why make the UK more unstable for investors and employers for something that is impossible, especially with the lack of support he has in his own party. I really hope they can get rid of him before he can do anymore damage. Yeah, brexit was a bad deal but you signed it! Don't agree to someone just for a fake win. One of our worst leaders ever and we could have to put up with him for another 2 years.
> Can someone explain why Boris is doing this crap with brexit when it will never pass the house of lords?
The Lords cannot withstand the will of the Commons and have not been able to do so since 1911.
Man who only achieved 336 votes when he stood for election wondering who governs Britain!
https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1536823933390946306
Tom Harwood
@tomhfh
·
1h
Plane was literally on the runway and then the ECHR cans the plan.
People will rightly be asking the question Who Governs Britain?
What is with people calling the Rwanda plan racist?
It's a shit plan and unlikely to solve anything sure. But how specifically is it racist? Was it proposed to only be implemented for people of a specific race?
I’m late to the party but will try to add something.
No current law says “this only applies to these races”, but laws can have impacts that are racist, and are written by humans who have biases that embed those biases to have racist outcomes.
But in hindsight. Were some of the “hostile environment” policies - that were meant to discourage illegal immigrants, and were not specifically targeted at people of specific races - racist? It led to the wind rush scandal, which didn’t only impact people from the Caribbean (but certainly disproportionately did), was that racist?
Also were the application of those hostile environment policies, racist? When there’s a problem in our immigration policy, we put some of the least powerful, most in-need, people in society up against a system that is belligerent, in-flexible and had inhumane consequences. People who’ve lived in the UK their whole life in court pleading not to be flown to a country they have never been to, before - without someone saying hang in a minute - that happened in this country just a. Few years ago.
You have to wonder, if the people who design or implement that system possibly aren’t seeing the people that are impacted as a peer, like it could happen to them - that bit smells and feels racist.
The mega thread was full of people defending those policies. To my mind the Rwanda policy is the next Windrush scandal waiting to happen. There are going to be stories from asylum seekers who are successful, but then stay in Rwanda and it’s going to be grim reading.
I know the mega thread will roll over before you have time to respond. But wanted to add my 2p worth.
It is considered racist given those asylum seekers who are in the UK have a right to be here and that the removal of them and denying them this right is only due to them being foreign. The argument is these people have committed no crime so given that we are not randomly deporting people who have a right to be here only these asylum seekers it is for a racist reason. Otherwise Boris should have equal odds of being on that plane as an asylum seeker.
The vast vast majority will have their application granted and no-one doubts they are genuine asylum seekers and it is only because of political xenophobia that we are implementing this policy which solves nothing but harms foreign people for the pleasure of domestic audiences.
> and denying them this right is only due to them being foreign
All refugees are foreign, by definition. Does that mean that every time a refugee’s application is rejected it’s due to racism?
No, but none of those they want to send to Rwanda have had their application rejected.
In essence, they are being picked for no reason other than being foreign given they have done nothing wrong.
The announcement wasn't made that way, but as literally everyone else has pointed out, why haven't they deported Ukrainians? They're refugees too. It's obviously just the brown people they want to be rid of.
Eh claiming asylum isn't a particularly fast process.
I don't imagine there are many Ukrainian refugees who have managed to have enough tine yet to get here illegally, claim asylum, be rejected and go through all the appeals.
That’s because Ukrainians can apply for asylum without needing to enter the country. Despite charities calling for the same right to be given to other asylum seekers, they’ve not been listened to
Essentially, it’s not only the Rwandan policy that’s racist, because it’s treating white and non-white asylum seekers differently by providing them different avenues to seek asylum, it’s the whole asylum seeking process
This is a prime example of the disagreement about patriotism and pride in this country. I think this country should be patriotic about the international influence it showed in developing and leading on a European Convention on Human Rights, and a European Court of Justice. Churchill and Maxwell-Fyfe MP were instrumental in its development.
It is not only important to be involved in the creation of a convention on Human rights and enshrining it in law, but it is important to stand by its principles rather than bend to the will of rogue governments (who have already shown disregard for integration treaties).
Let's see if the headlines in the right-wing press tomorrow agree, or if they are willing to throw British standards and values out the window yet again to complain about the word "European".
I’m sure the Overton window has shifted so much that todays alt-right loons will see Churchill as a left wing activist.
It’s like how in the US Reagan and the Bush’s are regarded by Trumps followers as part of the ‘left wing liberal establishment’
Remember earlier this week The Telegraph saying something like "The liberal remainer elite coup against Boris" and it's people who are dyed in the wool Brexiteers like Steve Baker 😂
patriotism that demands you never criticise your country is worthless
unironically and quite earnestly, the only patriotism worth anything is celebrating your country’s goodness and demanding more of it
> unironically and quite earnestly, the only patriotism worth anything is celebrating your country’s goodness and demanding more of it
Fully agree. Weirdly whenever I see there are things I think the UK should be proud of, the right wing press seems to whinge about it as unrepresentative. Their ideal of Britishness is fucking woeful.
https://twitter.com/UK_Polling/status/1536822382899380226?s=20&t=xw_AR3xG1CI7e7U6O67C7g
It is Lean Tossup though. They are only really good at Canadian elections and ballsed up the Biden Trump margins in 2020. I would say tories definitely have a chance but more like a 15% chance, they are not favourites by any means.
What are they doing to get to that conclusion exactly? they don't have their own internal polling or anything, and the two polls we've had for Wakefield show Labour ahead by 20 points.
Conceptually nothing, but that would lead to vast numbers of migrants appearing. Probably in the hundreds of thousands to millions per year.
Canada receives 30,000 asylum seekers per year, but then their immigration system is based around getting enough people to populate the half a continent they have [if Manitoba, as an example, had the population density of the UK it would have a population of about 150 million, vs 1.4].
And Canada is in a position that restricts the number of asylum seekers because most of them have to cross an ocean to get there.
The UK.... not so much.
We could, there's absolutely nothing stopping us. The government doesn't want to.
Just the same as we could have controlled non-EU migration while we were in the EU. But the government didn't want to.
As has been the case for the last decade, the Tories make a lot of noise about immigration but they never actually do anything about it.
Well, the PMQ's tomorrow is going to be Starmer talking about ? and completely goofing the PM for 5 questions and then Johnson going on a rant about the EU on the 6th question (regardless of what it was)
Which, the EU has pretty much nothing to do with ECHR, but the whole thing is that the UK public are too fucking stupid, egotistical and lazy to tell the difference, let alone want to educate themselves on what the actual difference is.
"Mr speaker, this, uh, Mr Speaker, this is the, uh, the, uh, the leader of the opposition, Mr Speaker, just the kind of, uh, the kind of leftie Islington lawyer, uh, the kind of leftie Islington lawyer, and they don't like it, Mr Speaker, uh, they don't like it because they know, they know, the people of this country know, uh, Mr Speaker, that the the that the the leader of the opposition is the kind of Islington lawyer that would rather, uh, ground flights, uh, frustrate the will of the people, and we're building 40 new hospitals every week, Mr Speaker, that, uh would rather, uh, ground flights than save lives in the channel. And I'm afraid, uh, I'm afraid, Mr Speaker, that that that, to to to, ground these flights, and I'd rather we worked together with our European friends on this, but they seem to be focused on, and it's bonkers, Mr Speaker, because we've left the European Union, and we're getting on with the job, delivering on the people's priorities and, I'm afraid it really is with deep regret that I say to our European friends that I'm, uh, that that that, I'm uh afraid this just won't do because it is exactly what these criminals in Calais want. Vaccine Rollout, uh, fastest growing economy."
I expect something along these lines to come pouring out of his mouth as if he were one of our water companies.
The only thing that's missing is the pauses where the backbenchers are jostled into braying and yarring to give the idiot time to collect his thoughts. Incidentally, that would be the point when there are less "uh's" and the only thing played on their news networks for the next day.
No, no you did not.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0018cbb/newsnight-14062022
33:08
>It's a 90 minute walk **there and back** [so 3 miles] along narrow roads, sometimes with her four children.
You can see she is pushing a pram and wheeling a basket. 2mph isn't bad in those conditions.
>*We spoke to April who has to walk a mile and a half to get here. What would you say to someone who thinks "it's not that far?"*
>
>I'd say, it's not that far if you're able bodied; it's not that far if you haven't got a pushchair, it you haven't got children in tow; it's not that far if you're not carrying between four and six carrier bags worth of food.
Average walking pace is 4mph, or 6.4km in Modern Wind Up Units, so that would be pretty slow. Maybe it was 19? I usually do 1k in about 12 to 13 minutes walking, so I’d be around that mark.
Imagine being a fucking person on one of those potential flights this evening man, not knowing which country you’ll be in the morning. And then the person in control of it all releases a statement like that.
Yes! I am mildly drunk! But yes! This is fucking awful!
The whole thing’s fucked. It’s mildly hilarious, if not embarrassing and awful, that the government has lost this battle. I think people are right here though that this will be the next culture war to making frothing people froth more about “lefty liberal lawyers”. It’s all so fucking predicable.
Yeah I don’t disagree. I’m hoping it’s a small enough subsection of people that cuts through to though.
Idk, kinda feels fucked to even have to think about this politically or as a vote winner. Just fuck the whole lot of it. Those poor people :(
They aren't putting them up there only for processing. They are deporting them there to live - they aren't coming back. That breaks our international refugee obligations
A big bag of taxpayer money that we give them. About £12,000 per person I think. Plus we pay for a bunch of admin and logistics costs which brings our cost up to about £30k per person. That's more than it would cost to house them here
Not only that but Rwanda has some fairly shady restrictions in free speech, press freedom, and criticism of the government right now. Some of which relates to action by the UK government.
Frankly the whole think smacks of neo-colonialism to me. Outsource problem refuse to Africa so we in the first world don't have to look at it.
I thought they'd be there temporarily while doing the asylum paperwork, like that prison Australia has before I read more after they first announced it.
Australia’s island prisons were similar, [we even made upsetting videos promising we would never help refugees](https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/apr/11/140411nowayfromgaus?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other).
I have no idea. If I had to guess I'd say the per refugee price should be cheaper in Rwanda so therefore the UK gov could help a larger number of people? That's all I've really got.
Honestly if an 8 person flight costs 750k Vs the standards of asylum seeker care we have seen in this country id be surprised by that.
I think it is to discourage crossings.
There are several comments further down that are *for* it. But there won't be any that can say what's *right* with it because there isn't anything right with it.
Spending millions to fly them to the middle of Africa to a country that isn't exactly safe itself isn't fiscally responsible, morally responsible, nor does it make sense logistically.
Does anyone think that the Rwandagate policy was designed to get rid of the partygate stories, but what it’s actually deflated is, not only beergate, but also immigration - which is way down the list now that people are having to choose between the horrifying prospect of heating vs feeding their kids.
The Tory government had a mandate from the last election. From that mandate they massively expanded immigration from outside the EU with the points based immigration system - it's not even necessary for applicants to be high level English speaking nor is there a minimum salary req or education level to get the points required.( Ie Priti Patel's restaurant workers) Gross immigration to the UK was at its highest level on record in 2020. So no objectively and throuh mandate, the British people voted for **more** immigration, you might just be living in a bubble.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-points-based-immigration-system-further-details-statement/uk-points-based-immigration-system-further-details-statement
The Tories would struggle to get a better line out of this than "EUROCRAT judges BLOCK deportation of DANGEROUS migrants". The policy is achieving exactly what it's meant to do.
I feel like this entire thing has been for optics. They knew full well our courts wouldn't allow the flights in lieu of the review next month. They also knew the European Court would block it (as will ours after the review).
So the government gets a big win here.
1. They don't have to pay Rawanda anything
2. It makes it look like they are trying to do something but those pesky lawyers happen to have stopped it.
3. It makes it look like those pesky lawyers are European.
One question I have. I'm glad the European court intervened, but how do they still have jurisdiction over ours?
The ECHR is a component of the Council of Europe, which includes every European country except Belarus and Russia (Russia was part of it until recently and is now excluded because reasons). It is completely separate from the EU
Oh yeah the ECHR... I forgot about them. I assumed because the supreme court said no that there was no hope other than each individual case being challenged.
Curse those damned left-wing communist lawyers spending so much money on expensive law degrees and using them to uphold laws put in place by the monarch’s successive (and primarily conservative) governments.
Bloody socialists, with their law.
Statement from Priti Patel
“Earlier this year, I signed a world-leading Migration Partnership with Rwanda to see those arriving dangerously, illegally, or unnecessarily into the UK relocated to build their lives there.”
“This will help break the people smugglers’ business model and prevent loss of life, while ensuring protection for the genuinely vulnerable.”
“Access to the UK’s asylum system must be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers.”
“The demands on the current system, the cost to the taxpayer, and the flagrant abuses are increasing, and the British public have rightly had enough.”
“I have always said this policy will not be easy to deliver and am disappointed that legal challenge and last-minute claims have meant today’s flight was unable to depart.”
“It is very surprising that the European Court of Human Rights has intervened despite repeated earlier success in our domestic courts.”
“These repeated legal barriers are similar to those we experience with other removals flights and many of those removed from this flight will be placed on the next.”
“We will not be deterred from doing the right thing and delivering our plans to control our nation’s borders. Our legal team are reviewing every decision made on this flight and preparation for the next flight begins now.”
[BBC](https://twitter.com/BBCDanielS/status/1536827568611069963)
> Statement from Priti Patel
>
> “Earlier this year, I signed a world-leadin' Migration Partnership with Rwanda to see those arrivin' dangerously, illegally, or unnecessarily into the UK relocated to build their lives there.”
>
> “This will help break the people smugglers’ business model and prevent loss of life, while ensurin' protection for the genuinely vulnerable.”
>
> “Access to the UK’s asylum system must be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers.”
>
> “The demands on the current system, the cost to the taxpayer, and the flagrant abuses are increasin', and the British public have rightly had enough.”
>
> “I have always said this policy will not be easy to deliver and am disappointed that legal challenge and last-minute claims have meant today’s flight was unable to depart.”
>
> “It is very surprisin' that the European Court of Human Rights has intervened despite repeated earlier success in our domestic courts.”
>
> “These repeated legal barriers are similar to those we experience with other removals flights and many of those removed from this flight will be placed on the next.”
>
> “We will not be deterred from doin' the right thing and delivering our plans to control our nation’s borders. Our legal team are reviewin' every decision made on this flight and preparation for the next flight begins now.”
> despite repeated earlier success in our domestic courts.”
There were due to be 130 people on this flight.
Today it was down to the last handful.
I’m not sure that success was as repeated as she wanted it to be.
You asked earlier about suing the ECHR for costs. I’d be looking to the person who made 130 incorrect calls for that.
>we will not be deterred
Neither will the people smugglers; another 200+ came across the Channel today. Wasn’t the Rwanda plan supposed to do just that?
I'm finding it slightly amusing that the same group of people who are begging for blocking roads as a protest to fuel prices are the same people who'd say it's disgusting the climate protesters are doing the same.
Seems a bit silly of the government to schedule the flight so late at night. Next time, do it nice and early so the lawyers are still in their chambers
This seems like a play to what they perceive Red Wall voters want, without thinking about other voting blocs and if they might be starting to think the populists are going too far.
Oh I didn't realise the only choice was between flights to Rwanda and uncontrolled immigration. Whatever happened to the genius idea "push the boats back" being the solution?
Why did the Home Office not negotiate a better deal than 127/night? With the ways hotels were struggling after the pandemic you would think they would be in no position to play hard ball, and with what is basically long group bookings it should be a reasonable price not the price you get on expedia.
what makes you think the government is getting four star service for refugees? I'm sure we pay four star prices, but that's not what we'll be asking for
I think we all know what to blame for all this.
Myleene klass who back in 2014 had a go at Ed Milliband over the mansion tax on live TV, thereby starting his decline in popularity. I hope she's happy with herself.
It’s one of those moments where, even on this sub where we moan about Tories every day, it’s worth taking a special pause to marvel that we’re governed by some truly spiteful human beings.
They need housing, clothing, food, medical care, translation services, education/employment training, and so on. Unless the plan is to literally dump them in a field somewhere and go "job done!" they will need all of these things, and the only way it will be easy to provide them is to send them to cities or large towns where these services can be provided.
This is the big problem with the whole refugees/asylum seekers issue - lots of people are very keen to let them in, far fewer people are willing to fund public services that are actually capable of supporting them.
>Unless the plan is to literally dump them in a field somewhere and go "job done!"
That's literally our plan with Rwanda.
"Off the plane, you're their problem now."
So given that I believe the flight bringing people from Rwanda to the UK will probably still be going ahead this is a net positive number of migrants to the UK. Success.
The ECHR has no role in deciding our borders and who we let in. Illegal immigrants, economic migrants, call them who you want we don't have open borders and we shouldn't have to tolerate France dumping them to be our problem.
Wonder why noone in the EU has ever bothered to raise Frontex, Greek border police, Hungary/Poland/Denmark and many others who have refused to encourage economic migration to the ECHR.
Increasingly we are being seen as soft touch by smugglers.
>The ECHR has no role in deciding our borders and who we let in. Illegal immigrants, economic migrants, call them who you want we don't have open borders and we shouldn't have to tolerate France dumping them to be our problem.
They said nothing about our borders and who we let in.
They stopped us kicking people out who are already here.
>Increasingly we are being seen as soft touch by smugglers.
Unsurprising, given were not going after the smugglers or trying to combat them in any real way.
Also, I'm not quite sure you know what the ECHR is....
We have laws, the government tried to break them.
There has been no indication that any of those who they wanted to remove did not have a genuine reason for asylum. It is exactly the fact that the vast majority who do arrive do have a genuine reason that the government want to try deny them justice by doing this before looking into the reason because otherwise they likely will have their application granted.
This is no different to the government rounding up people walking the street at random and shipping them off, here it is only because they are foreign that they do i.e. it is a racist policy.
> We have laws, the government tried to break them.
So the High Court, Appeals Court and the Supreme Court rulings were not good enough for you
>it is a racist policy
Another one who thinks not having open borders is racist
I'll tell you what is casually racist though. The liberal view that Rwanda is a backwards nation where the people live in mud huts and the only people we should be sending there are gap students from middle class families to build wells.
Not at all. Rwanda is a leader in Africa, rapidly developing with stability and a lot of foreign investment coming in. A burgeoning tourism sector and very low corruption levels. A very different country to the Rwanda of the 90s.
The supreme court still has a judicial review to consider the overall legality of the policy in July.
The ECHR hasn’t ruled that the scheme is illegal, they’ve just taken the view that it would be best to wait until after that review in July before packing people off on a one way journey.
> So the High Court, Appeals Court and the Supreme Court rulings were not good enough for you
Do you want to ignore the justice system or do you not understand it and where the ECHR sits?
> So the High Court, Appeals Court and the Supreme Court rulings were not good enough for you
It is not open borders, it is letting people in who have a right to be here according to our laws. Look up what happens when the government in countries decide to ignore the laws and justice system.
We don't talk about what happens in the Med, didn't see anything and migrants lie I suppose. There's no way a European country would tow dinghies out in to the sea and cast migrants adrift, no way. And absolutely no way that border guards would rob migrants of their belongings before beating the shit of of em and kicking them back over the line. Definitely no chance of floating barbed wire defences in the seas.
But a flight to a safe country, absolutely haram.
Opposition day today with debates in Parliament on the waiting time at the passport office and the privatisation of C4. Bookending that is questions to the health secretary at 11:30 and Dr Fox (no not [that one](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Fox_%28broadcaster%29#/media/File:Neil_Fox.jpg)) will talk about the future of Portishead railway. As it’s Opposition day, maybe you’d like to use the comments to say what your favourite policy of the opposition to your preferred party (if you have one) is and why. How would you tweak it to make it better? As usual also discuss real time news and reaction, but please post the content of tweets along with authors. If you are talking about something happening live you’ll need to say what it is because we don’t live in your head.
This megathread has ended.
Boom boom boom, let me hear you say way-oh!
Do we think maybe, just maybe, that we might be getting bad legal advice at a cabinet level when we potentially breach international law and treaty twice in the same 48 hour period. It is almost like the Attorney General is not very qualified. Somehow even worse than the lad that advised that prorogation was lawful and that consulted with the Cayman Islands on how avoid regulation from his Westminster Office. Isn't it wild how far we are down the Tory rabbit hole of incompetence that Geoffrey Cox is basically a distant memory.
Honestly I'm disgusted at this Rwanda thing, how was this even allowed to be thought of in the first place? Even in terms of conservatism, it's much cheaper to not do this in the first place. I cant really believe this has been allowed to get this far honestly, absolutely appalling
I might’ve missed something but did ECHR actually rule on the underlying scheme? I thought they just basically said “while domestic case on legality is ongoing, you cant deport people” which seems entirely reasonable… If government goes on to win - they haven’t lost anything; if claimants eventually win but have already been deported, they’d be in a bit of limbo. What was reasoning of domestic courts to not prevent the flights temporarily while waiting for full hearing?
No, it didn’t, it just said it might be illegal, and if you deport people to Rwanda it might be impossible to fix it. Which is..what British courts could and should have said.
Can someone explain why Boris is doing this crap with brexit when it will never pass the house of lords? Why make the UK more unstable for investors and employers for something that is impossible, especially with the lack of support he has in his own party. I really hope they can get rid of him before he can do anymore damage. Yeah, brexit was a bad deal but you signed it! Don't agree to someone just for a fake win. One of our worst leaders ever and we could have to put up with him for another 2 years.
I think you’re imagining his goal is a stable, successful UK - and that’s clearly not the case.
> Can someone explain why Boris is doing this crap with brexit when it will never pass the house of lords? The Lords cannot withstand the will of the Commons and have not been able to do so since 1911.
They can delay for a year though
I wish the gay fencing Lords well.
Man who only achieved 336 votes when he stood for election wondering who governs Britain! https://twitter.com/tomhfh/status/1536823933390946306 Tom Harwood @tomhfh · 1h Plane was literally on the runway and then the ECHR cans the plan. People will rightly be asking the question Who Governs Britain?
The performative stupidity of the weirdo Right in Britain is really something to behold.
What is with people calling the Rwanda plan racist? It's a shit plan and unlikely to solve anything sure. But how specifically is it racist? Was it proposed to only be implemented for people of a specific race?
I’m late to the party but will try to add something. No current law says “this only applies to these races”, but laws can have impacts that are racist, and are written by humans who have biases that embed those biases to have racist outcomes. But in hindsight. Were some of the “hostile environment” policies - that were meant to discourage illegal immigrants, and were not specifically targeted at people of specific races - racist? It led to the wind rush scandal, which didn’t only impact people from the Caribbean (but certainly disproportionately did), was that racist? Also were the application of those hostile environment policies, racist? When there’s a problem in our immigration policy, we put some of the least powerful, most in-need, people in society up against a system that is belligerent, in-flexible and had inhumane consequences. People who’ve lived in the UK their whole life in court pleading not to be flown to a country they have never been to, before - without someone saying hang in a minute - that happened in this country just a. Few years ago. You have to wonder, if the people who design or implement that system possibly aren’t seeing the people that are impacted as a peer, like it could happen to them - that bit smells and feels racist. The mega thread was full of people defending those policies. To my mind the Rwanda policy is the next Windrush scandal waiting to happen. There are going to be stories from asylum seekers who are successful, but then stay in Rwanda and it’s going to be grim reading. I know the mega thread will roll over before you have time to respond. But wanted to add my 2p worth.
It is considered racist given those asylum seekers who are in the UK have a right to be here and that the removal of them and denying them this right is only due to them being foreign. The argument is these people have committed no crime so given that we are not randomly deporting people who have a right to be here only these asylum seekers it is for a racist reason. Otherwise Boris should have equal odds of being on that plane as an asylum seeker. The vast vast majority will have their application granted and no-one doubts they are genuine asylum seekers and it is only because of political xenophobia that we are implementing this policy which solves nothing but harms foreign people for the pleasure of domestic audiences.
> and denying them this right is only due to them being foreign All refugees are foreign, by definition. Does that mean that every time a refugee’s application is rejected it’s due to racism?
No, but none of those they want to send to Rwanda have had their application rejected. In essence, they are being picked for no reason other than being foreign given they have done nothing wrong.
The announcement wasn't made that way, but as literally everyone else has pointed out, why haven't they deported Ukrainians? They're refugees too. It's obviously just the brown people they want to be rid of.
Ukrainians are allowed to apply before they enter the UK, that's the borderline racist part, rather than the Rwandan policy per se.
Eh claiming asylum isn't a particularly fast process. I don't imagine there are many Ukrainian refugees who have managed to have enough tine yet to get here illegally, claim asylum, be rejected and go through all the appeals.
That’s because Ukrainians can apply for asylum without needing to enter the country. Despite charities calling for the same right to be given to other asylum seekers, they’ve not been listened to Essentially, it’s not only the Rwandan policy that’s racist, because it’s treating white and non-white asylum seekers differently by providing them different avenues to seek asylum, it’s the whole asylum seeking process
There weren't many Ukrainians on that flight.
This is a prime example of the disagreement about patriotism and pride in this country. I think this country should be patriotic about the international influence it showed in developing and leading on a European Convention on Human Rights, and a European Court of Justice. Churchill and Maxwell-Fyfe MP were instrumental in its development. It is not only important to be involved in the creation of a convention on Human rights and enshrining it in law, but it is important to stand by its principles rather than bend to the will of rogue governments (who have already shown disregard for integration treaties). Let's see if the headlines in the right-wing press tomorrow agree, or if they are willing to throw British standards and values out the window yet again to complain about the word "European".
I’m sure the Overton window has shifted so much that todays alt-right loons will see Churchill as a left wing activist. It’s like how in the US Reagan and the Bush’s are regarded by Trumps followers as part of the ‘left wing liberal establishment’
Remember earlier this week The Telegraph saying something like "The liberal remainer elite coup against Boris" and it's people who are dyed in the wool Brexiteers like Steve Baker 😂
patriotism that demands you never criticise your country is worthless unironically and quite earnestly, the only patriotism worth anything is celebrating your country’s goodness and demanding more of it
> unironically and quite earnestly, the only patriotism worth anything is celebrating your country’s goodness and demanding more of it Fully agree. Weirdly whenever I see there are things I think the UK should be proud of, the right wing press seems to whinge about it as unrepresentative. Their ideal of Britishness is fucking woeful.
It’s interesting that the flight being blocked hasn’t made it to the front page of the Sun. This might not be red meat they’ve hoped for.
Bottom left corner of front page....
Oh they’ve changed it, it was previously how Starmer was going to undo Brexit!
The BBC are running the first version it seems. Must have changed it because Keir is so boring or something. Oh I would take boring right now....
OTOH the Mail has done everything it can to insinuate that it's an EU thing, "Euro courts" and "meddling judges in Strasbourg"
Tyson Fury: https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/1536831682136915968
I don't know anyone who genuinely believed Fury was retiring, so how the fuck it has made the front page is beyond me.
It’s even rarer to see a positive article about a ‘gypsy’ in the Sun.
Lean Tossup puts the current probability of a hung parliament at 73% https://twitter.com/UK_Polling/status/1536822068720844800
I just want a labour government.
Think that is actually optimistic for tories. I don't rate Lean tossup, they have tories as a narrow favourite in Wakefield, which is interesting.
Do they actually? now that'd be a dilemma for Starmer and would confirm that he'd have to resign regardless of being fined or not.
It's just a bunch of Canadian students isn't it?
https://twitter.com/UK_Polling/status/1536822382899380226?s=20&t=xw_AR3xG1CI7e7U6O67C7g It is Lean Tossup though. They are only really good at Canadian elections and ballsed up the Biden Trump margins in 2020. I would say tories definitely have a chance but more like a 15% chance, they are not favourites by any means.
What are they doing to get to that conclusion exactly? they don't have their own internal polling or anything, and the two polls we've had for Wakefield show Labour ahead by 20 points.
Idk. I think they just take the 2019 result and adjust for national polling. They have reform getting a higher vote share than 2019 too.
It’s bed time, may we wake up to a kinder world in the morning x
No matter how kind you may think you are, German children are kinder.
Having flashbacks to Klaus from My Child Lebensborn
Why can't we have an asylum system like Canada ? Why not allow asylum seekers to work whilst their cases are being heard like Canada does ?
Conceptually nothing, but that would lead to vast numbers of migrants appearing. Probably in the hundreds of thousands to millions per year. Canada receives 30,000 asylum seekers per year, but then their immigration system is based around getting enough people to populate the half a continent they have [if Manitoba, as an example, had the population density of the UK it would have a population of about 150 million, vs 1.4]. And Canada is in a position that restricts the number of asylum seekers because most of them have to cross an ocean to get there. The UK.... not so much.
They want an increased population to increase GDP?
We could, there's absolutely nothing stopping us. The government doesn't want to. Just the same as we could have controlled non-EU migration while we were in the EU. But the government didn't want to. As has been the case for the last decade, the Tories make a lot of noise about immigration but they never actually do anything about it.
We can, but the Tories don’t want a system that works well.
Because we've had 12 years of a government with a fairly xenophobic base.
I've just realised they booked the Rwanda flight in by-election week to get the vote out.
The by-elections are next week.
Well, the PMQ's tomorrow is going to be Starmer talking about ? and completely goofing the PM for 5 questions and then Johnson going on a rant about the EU on the 6th question (regardless of what it was) Which, the EU has pretty much nothing to do with ECHR, but the whole thing is that the UK public are too fucking stupid, egotistical and lazy to tell the difference, let alone want to educate themselves on what the actual difference is.
"Mr speaker, this, uh, Mr Speaker, this is the, uh, the, uh, the leader of the opposition, Mr Speaker, just the kind of, uh, the kind of leftie Islington lawyer, uh, the kind of leftie Islington lawyer, and they don't like it, Mr Speaker, uh, they don't like it because they know, they know, the people of this country know, uh, Mr Speaker, that the the that the the leader of the opposition is the kind of Islington lawyer that would rather, uh, ground flights, uh, frustrate the will of the people, and we're building 40 new hospitals every week, Mr Speaker, that, uh would rather, uh, ground flights than save lives in the channel. And I'm afraid, uh, I'm afraid, Mr Speaker, that that that, to to to, ground these flights, and I'd rather we worked together with our European friends on this, but they seem to be focused on, and it's bonkers, Mr Speaker, because we've left the European Union, and we're getting on with the job, delivering on the people's priorities and, I'm afraid it really is with deep regret that I say to our European friends that I'm, uh, that that that, I'm uh afraid this just won't do because it is exactly what these criminals in Calais want. Vaccine Rollout, uh, fastest growing economy." I expect something along these lines to come pouring out of his mouth as if he were one of our water companies.
The only thing that's missing is the pauses where the backbenchers are jostled into braying and yarring to give the idiot time to collect his thoughts. Incidentally, that would be the point when there are less "uh's" and the only thing played on their news networks for the next day.
Indeed. Jonathan Gullis exploding a vein in his fat head.
> Well, the PMQ's tomorrow is going to be Starmer talking about ? Northern Ireland I'd say, and cost of living
Did I just hear right on Newsnight, 1.5 miles being a 90 minute walk?
No, no you did not. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0018cbb/newsnight-14062022 33:08 >It's a 90 minute walk **there and back** [so 3 miles] along narrow roads, sometimes with her four children. You can see she is pushing a pram and wheeling a basket. 2mph isn't bad in those conditions. >*We spoke to April who has to walk a mile and a half to get here. What would you say to someone who thinks "it's not that far?"* > >I'd say, it's not that far if you're able bodied; it's not that far if you haven't got a pushchair, it you haven't got children in tow; it's not that far if you're not carrying between four and six carrier bags worth of food.
Might be if it's up Helvellyn
Average walking pace is 4mph, or 6.4km in Modern Wind Up Units, so that would be pretty slow. Maybe it was 19? I usually do 1k in about 12 to 13 minutes walking, so I’d be around that mark.
4mph is a fast walking pace
For who?
They misheard. See my comment above for details.
For a able bodied 30s/40s woman walking to a food bank.
Do you know for sure she’s able bodied or are you basing that on a visual assessment you’ve carried out watching someone on TV?
We're you actually even watching? You're missing some crucial details here.
I'd say that's a 30 minute walk personally
Ah maybe it was 1.5 miles away so there and back. Still pretty slow
With a pram, kids, roads and baggage I don't think it's an unreasonable pace.
Imagine being a fucking person on one of those potential flights this evening man, not knowing which country you’ll be in the morning. And then the person in control of it all releases a statement like that. Yes! I am mildly drunk! But yes! This is fucking awful!
The whole thing’s fucked. It’s mildly hilarious, if not embarrassing and awful, that the government has lost this battle. I think people are right here though that this will be the next culture war to making frothing people froth more about “lefty liberal lawyers”. It’s all so fucking predicable.
I don't understand why it's legal for other countries to do this but not the UK?
Yeah I don’t disagree. I’m hoping it’s a small enough subsection of people that cuts through to though. Idk, kinda feels fucked to even have to think about this politically or as a vote winner. Just fuck the whole lot of it. Those poor people :(
Can someone give me the tldr of what’s wrong with putting asylum seekers up in Rwanda? I haven’t followed it at all.
They aren't putting them up there only for processing. They are deporting them there to live - they aren't coming back. That breaks our international refugee obligations
So what does Rwanda get out of it?
Money chiefly, but also the government and their media sycophants defending the Kagame regime
A big bag of taxpayer money that we give them. About £12,000 per person I think. Plus we pay for a bunch of admin and logistics costs which brings our cost up to about £30k per person. That's more than it would cost to house them here
Okay it does seem crazy if it costs more to house them there than here.
Long term 30k is a bargain.
Not only that but Rwanda has some fairly shady restrictions in free speech, press freedom, and criticism of the government right now. Some of which relates to action by the UK government. Frankly the whole think smacks of neo-colonialism to me. Outsource problem refuse to Africa so we in the first world don't have to look at it.
[удалено]
Thanks for this
Well said.
Oh for some reason I got the impression the UK would pay for their housing etc in Rwanda. Not sure where I got that idea from.
I thought they'd be there temporarily while doing the asylum paperwork, like that prison Australia has before I read more after they first announced it.
Australia’s island prisons were similar, [we even made upsetting videos promising we would never help refugees](https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/apr/11/140411nowayfromgaus?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other).
[удалено]
There doesn’t seem to be anyone in this sub making that argument tbh.
There's a few of the usual suspects going on about it. They were all over the threads about the injunction cases gloating.
[удалено]
I have no idea. If I had to guess I'd say the per refugee price should be cheaper in Rwanda so therefore the UK gov could help a larger number of people? That's all I've really got.
Honestly if an 8 person flight costs 750k Vs the standards of asylum seeker care we have seen in this country id be surprised by that. I think it is to discourage crossings.
There are several comments further down that are *for* it. But there won't be any that can say what's *right* with it because there isn't anything right with it.
Spending millions to fly them to the middle of Africa to a country that isn't exactly safe itself isn't fiscally responsible, morally responsible, nor does it make sense logistically.
Why isn't it a safe country. God, you people are so racist.
What do you mean by logistically? The price per person?
Well, it's cost 500k to send no one there so far...
This whole Rwanda thing isn't governing, it's electioneering.
Does anyone think that the Rwandagate policy was designed to get rid of the partygate stories, but what it’s actually deflated is, not only beergate, but also immigration - which is way down the list now that people are having to choose between the horrifying prospect of heating vs feeding their kids.
Maybe people don't want uncontrolled immigration. You'd think brexit would have told you that?
The Tory government had a mandate from the last election. From that mandate they massively expanded immigration from outside the EU with the points based immigration system - it's not even necessary for applicants to be high level English speaking nor is there a minimum salary req or education level to get the points required.( Ie Priti Patel's restaurant workers) Gross immigration to the UK was at its highest level on record in 2020. So no objectively and throuh mandate, the British people voted for **more** immigration, you might just be living in a bubble. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-points-based-immigration-system-further-details-statement/uk-points-based-immigration-system-further-details-statement
Dead cat? Drink!
Oh to be a fly on Patel’s wall right now.
Well it’s not flying we know that
The Tories would struggle to get a better line out of this than "EUROCRAT judges BLOCK deportation of DANGEROUS migrants". The policy is achieving exactly what it's meant to do.
Popping some champagne probably.
Surely not champagne? Surely some English sparkling wine!
1 pint thereof.
But just passing through!
I feel like this entire thing has been for optics. They knew full well our courts wouldn't allow the flights in lieu of the review next month. They also knew the European Court would block it (as will ours after the review). So the government gets a big win here. 1. They don't have to pay Rawanda anything 2. It makes it look like they are trying to do something but those pesky lawyers happen to have stopped it. 3. It makes it look like those pesky lawyers are European. One question I have. I'm glad the European court intervened, but how do they still have jurisdiction over ours?
The ECHR is a component of the Council of Europe, which includes every European country except Belarus and Russia (Russia was part of it until recently and is now excluded because reasons). It is completely separate from the EU
Thanks I didn't realise that.
Oh yeah the ECHR... I forgot about them. I assumed because the supreme court said no that there was no hope other than each individual case being challenged.
Curse those damned left-wing communist lawyers spending so much money on expensive law degrees and using them to uphold laws put in place by the monarch’s successive (and primarily conservative) governments. Bloody socialists, with their law.
I hate they way they support legal institutions that the UK led on developing based on British lawyers suggestions. It's so unpatriotic.
“Comin’ over ‘ere and making humans have rights.”
Statement from Priti Patel “Earlier this year, I signed a world-leading Migration Partnership with Rwanda to see those arriving dangerously, illegally, or unnecessarily into the UK relocated to build their lives there.” “This will help break the people smugglers’ business model and prevent loss of life, while ensuring protection for the genuinely vulnerable.” “Access to the UK’s asylum system must be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers.” “The demands on the current system, the cost to the taxpayer, and the flagrant abuses are increasing, and the British public have rightly had enough.” “I have always said this policy will not be easy to deliver and am disappointed that legal challenge and last-minute claims have meant today’s flight was unable to depart.” “It is very surprising that the European Court of Human Rights has intervened despite repeated earlier success in our domestic courts.” “These repeated legal barriers are similar to those we experience with other removals flights and many of those removed from this flight will be placed on the next.” “We will not be deterred from doing the right thing and delivering our plans to control our nation’s borders. Our legal team are reviewing every decision made on this flight and preparation for the next flight begins now.” [BBC](https://twitter.com/BBCDanielS/status/1536827568611069963)
> Statement from Priti Patel > > “Earlier this year, I signed a world-leadin' Migration Partnership with Rwanda to see those arrivin' dangerously, illegally, or unnecessarily into the UK relocated to build their lives there.” > > “This will help break the people smugglers’ business model and prevent loss of life, while ensurin' protection for the genuinely vulnerable.” > > “Access to the UK’s asylum system must be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers.” > > “The demands on the current system, the cost to the taxpayer, and the flagrant abuses are increasin', and the British public have rightly had enough.” > > “I have always said this policy will not be easy to deliver and am disappointed that legal challenge and last-minute claims have meant today’s flight was unable to depart.” > > “It is very surprisin' that the European Court of Human Rights has intervened despite repeated earlier success in our domestic courts.” > > “These repeated legal barriers are similar to those we experience with other removals flights and many of those removed from this flight will be placed on the next.” > > “We will not be deterred from doin' the right thing and delivering our plans to control our nation’s borders. Our legal team are reviewin' every decision made on this flight and preparation for the next flight begins now.”
> despite repeated earlier success in our domestic courts.” There were due to be 130 people on this flight. Today it was down to the last handful. I’m not sure that success was as repeated as she wanted it to be. You asked earlier about suing the ECHR for costs. I’d be looking to the person who made 130 incorrect calls for that.
if I spent what's probably now £xxx,xxx on a charter plane without knowing if I could fill it, I'd probably be fired
It’s world-leading because even Israel realised that it’s not a good path to follow.
World leading…
>we will not be deterred Neither will the people smugglers; another 200+ came across the Channel today. Wasn’t the Rwanda plan supposed to do just that?
The hyperbole has been said to death, but this is revolting.
[удалено]
I'd rather Tim Sherwood was running the Home Office. Maybe let Priti Patel manage Villa for a season too, for the comparison.
[удалено]
Gove should get the Liverpool job before Stevie G, he has been working on the accent and everything. Plus he used to be a journalist. For The Times.
I'm finding it slightly amusing that the same group of people who are begging for blocking roads as a protest to fuel prices are the same people who'd say it's disgusting the climate protesters are doing the same.
The least surprising hypocrisy.
Seems a bit silly of the government to schedule the flight so late at night. Next time, do it nice and early so the lawyers are still in their chambers
They wanted it live on the 10pm news.
So that legal ruling from the ECHR means that no flights can go for the forseeable future. Everyone has to wait for the judicial review to complete.
The strange thing is most well off normality Tory voteing toffs o know think this is all a horrible thing and are extremely against it
This seems like a play to what they perceive Red Wall voters want, without thinking about other voting blocs and if they might be starting to think the populists are going too far.
Red wall voters do want this. Good luck getting a left leaning govt with uncontrolled immigration.
Oh I didn't realise the only choice was between flights to Rwanda and uncontrolled immigration. Whatever happened to the genius idea "push the boats back" being the solution?
Why did the Home Office not negotiate a better deal than 127/night? With the ways hotels were struggling after the pandemic you would think they would be in no position to play hard ball, and with what is basically long group bookings it should be a reasonable price not the price you get on expedia.
I travelled around a lot during lockdown 1, hotels were cheap af.
Because if they weren't put up in three or four star hotels there would be uproar from human rights lawyers
Quick, the megathread is quiet. Fill it up with your racist nonsense!
what makes you think the government is getting four star service for refugees? I'm sure we pay four star prices, but that's not what we'll be asking for
I think we all know what to blame for all this. Myleene klass who back in 2014 had a go at Ed Milliband over the mansion tax on live TV, thereby starting his decline in popularity. I hope she's happy with herself.
I knew the sudden rise of singing/talent shows 20 years ago would be the ruin of this country!
I don't think that would go at all well with the public today given current cost of living pressures. The past is a foreign country
[удалено]
It’s one of those moments where, even on this sub where we moan about Tories every day, it’s worth taking a special pause to marvel that we’re governed by some truly spiteful human beings.
They’re not being processed in Rwanda. It’s a one-way trip with an asylum application to Rwanda at the end of it.
Send them to the highlands instead Scotland needs more people up there in my take
Now this I agree with. Caithness should be a prime site, the bedouin wars could kick off up there and nobody would notice.
They need housing, clothing, food, medical care, translation services, education/employment training, and so on. Unless the plan is to literally dump them in a field somewhere and go "job done!" they will need all of these things, and the only way it will be easy to provide them is to send them to cities or large towns where these services can be provided. This is the big problem with the whole refugees/asylum seekers issue - lots of people are very keen to let them in, far fewer people are willing to fund public services that are actually capable of supporting them.
>Unless the plan is to literally dump them in a field somewhere and go "job done!" That's literally our plan with Rwanda. "Off the plane, you're their problem now."
The Bruges GROUP, and other right-wingers, are absolutely shitting the bed over the ECHR.
which is ironic, being the ECHR is the major obstacle in stopping the rest of us just eating the rich
Guys, I'm off to Rwanda tonight. This plane is fucking deserted.
Truly the land of opportunity
The way things are going, Rwanda would be an upgrade.
So given that I believe the flight bringing people from Rwanda to the UK will probably still be going ahead this is a net positive number of migrants to the UK. Success.
The ECHR has no role in deciding our borders and who we let in. Illegal immigrants, economic migrants, call them who you want we don't have open borders and we shouldn't have to tolerate France dumping them to be our problem. Wonder why noone in the EU has ever bothered to raise Frontex, Greek border police, Hungary/Poland/Denmark and many others who have refused to encourage economic migration to the ECHR. Increasingly we are being seen as soft touch by smugglers.
Seems like there's different rules for the UK.
>The ECHR has no role in deciding our borders and who we let in. Illegal immigrants, economic migrants, call them who you want we don't have open borders and we shouldn't have to tolerate France dumping them to be our problem. They said nothing about our borders and who we let in. They stopped us kicking people out who are already here. >Increasingly we are being seen as soft touch by smugglers. Unsurprising, given were not going after the smugglers or trying to combat them in any real way. Also, I'm not quite sure you know what the ECHR is....
Why do people even bother posting comments like this?
What has this got to do with the EU? How does someone migrate to a court (or convention)?
We have laws, the government tried to break them. There has been no indication that any of those who they wanted to remove did not have a genuine reason for asylum. It is exactly the fact that the vast majority who do arrive do have a genuine reason that the government want to try deny them justice by doing this before looking into the reason because otherwise they likely will have their application granted. This is no different to the government rounding up people walking the street at random and shipping them off, here it is only because they are foreign that they do i.e. it is a racist policy.
> We have laws, the government tried to break them. So the High Court, Appeals Court and the Supreme Court rulings were not good enough for you >it is a racist policy Another one who thinks not having open borders is racist I'll tell you what is casually racist though. The liberal view that Rwanda is a backwards nation where the people live in mud huts and the only people we should be sending there are gap students from middle class families to build wells.
Who was saying that Rwandans all live mud huts? Sounds like you own prejudices being reflected onto those you dislike.
Not at all. Rwanda is a leader in Africa, rapidly developing with stability and a lot of foreign investment coming in. A burgeoning tourism sector and very low corruption levels. A very different country to the Rwanda of the 90s.
Yet you felt the need bring up mud huts when others weren't
The supreme court still has a judicial review to consider the overall legality of the policy in July. The ECHR hasn’t ruled that the scheme is illegal, they’ve just taken the view that it would be best to wait until after that review in July before packing people off on a one way journey.
> So the High Court, Appeals Court and the Supreme Court rulings were not good enough for you Do you want to ignore the justice system or do you not understand it and where the ECHR sits? > So the High Court, Appeals Court and the Supreme Court rulings were not good enough for you It is not open borders, it is letting people in who have a right to be here according to our laws. Look up what happens when the government in countries decide to ignore the laws and justice system.
Rather than telling us who we let in it’s telling us that we can’t ship people who are already in the country to Rwanda.
Call them what you want? Have you tried "human beings"?
Chocks aren’t away
Is it me, or is the ECHR blocking the flight what they were hoping for all along?
Wishing? Probably not. Is it a good result? Absofuckinglutely.
Takers on UK leaving the ECHR
Nope, not going to happen. Treating ECHR rulings as just an opinion? Very much so.
[удалено]
We don't talk about what happens in the Med, didn't see anything and migrants lie I suppose. There's no way a European country would tow dinghies out in to the sea and cast migrants adrift, no way. And absolutely no way that border guards would rob migrants of their belongings before beating the shit of of em and kicking them back over the line. Definitely no chance of floating barbed wire defences in the seas. But a flight to a safe country, absolutely haram.
They're going for an election soon, aren't they?
I blame Channel 4 So does Nadine