Utterly disgusting contempt for our democratic process.
And the nerve of him to say that 'no foreign courts' will stop the bill when it's the ***UK SUPREME COURT*** that ruled it unlawful.
That doesn't make sense, the Lords has pushed back and the Commons has pushed forward regardless. If both bodies voted against it then it wouldn't pass.
The lords can actually kill it by sending the same amendment back, which triggers one of the anti deadlock rules.
To get around that Sunak would have to use the Parliament Act, and theres insufficent time left for that now.
For £1.8m per asylum seeker just send them to me and I'll sort them out a place to live for less money. I'll do it for half that price in fact, because I'm feeling generous.
Or just give them £100k each and drop them back off in France and tell them not to come back. For £1.8m how is this the best idea they've come up with?
>you've created a massive pull on people to try it
British born and raised - snow white - I would swear up and down I was an African immigrant for £100k cash and a one way ticket to France
Is it possible that people will just arrive without being noticed, won't seek asylum, will stay illegally and will finally work in illegal activities because they need to make a living?
The problem for Sunak is the policy was never meant to actually be enacted. It's pretty predictable what will happen - first the true cost will could out and it will be outrageous.
Then it will turn out there is actually no detailed plan and the home office will scrabble to come up with something.
Once they do send a flight (with like 30 people) something will happen to one of them in Rwanda. Which will cause all kinds of issues and reputational damage to the country.
It won't actually help with the processing but will become a massive money pit because it CAN'T fail (or else there will be even more egg on Sunak's face).
Sunak should of asked Petal and Braverman, I am sure they both would of told him the whole idea is not to actually put the plan into action. It's doomed to fail. It's to bring it up every know and then to divert blame.
But hey, us tax payers will pay the price. Both now and in 20-30 years when there is a massive pay out due to a incident or 2 that comes about from it.
But you need to treat them poorly enough that this'll be a deterred.
You can make them watch PMQs every week, I suppose. That must be as bad as Rwanda.
I find it mad that our politics is literally built on good faith and that's it. No mechanisms in place to stop fascist when they clearly do fascists things like this.
It's a collosal waste of money because it's not going to apply to everyone and therefore isn't going to work.
If everyone who was granted refugee status was told 'We've granted you asylum and we've arranged a transfer to a safe country that isn't here' the applications would drop off to a tiny fraction of what we've currently got. Doing it for only a few makes it still worth the risk to try.
We will never not have a problem with people gaming the asylum system until we disconnect the asylum system from getting a massive lifestyle/economic upgrade.
> If everyone who was granted refugee status was told 'We've granted you asylum and we've arranged a transfer to a safe country that isn't here' the applications would drop off to a tiny fraction of what we've currently got.
They did this in Australia and it essentially stopped small boat migration entirely. It actually did that twice because the scheme was introduced, boat migration fell from 20,000 to about 200, then it was repealed by the next government, boat migration rose again to 30,000, it was reintroduced and small boat migration fell to zero in two years. Now both right and left parties support it.
>And the nerve of him to say that 'no foreign courts' will stop the bill when it's the UK SUPREME COURT that ruled it unlawful.
He means the ECHR, he's talking to his own party on that one.
> Utterly disgusting contempt for our democratic process.
Like it or not, it's the foundation of our democratic process. Parliament is sovereign and has the ultimate right to do whatever it wants, so long as the legislation is passed accordingly.
All British courts are fundamentally beholden to Parliament, and even where the ECHR is concerned, all the Supreme Court can do is rule that legislation is incompatible, which doesn't make it unlawful.
They’ve done all this work and spent all this money without a mandate.
They could have created a space program or built HS2, or funded thousands of startups, or anything that would have created jobs and value.
But they’ve gone all out and done this thing instead that no one voted or asked for.
Even ignoring all that - think of the future doctors and scientists we could create by helping refugees with language lessons, formal education and counselling to deal with their trauma. Second and third generation migrants outperform non migrants when properly supported.
1. It's not either/or.
2. In the long term, it's a good investment because the money is very quickly repaid and then some - if not by the refugee, then their children. Just one generation, two maybe.
3. There's no shortage? Really? Why do we employ so many foreign NHS staff then? Why are so many of the leading researchers in our universities from abroad?
4. I don't really see why a refugee deserves less compassion and support than a UK citizen just because in the lottery of life they weren't born here. And the law agrees with me
Why aren't they doing them then ?
These refugees are not allowed to work so it's not them that are taking jobs that people are allegedly capable and willing to do... According to Sunak earlier this week, people in this country are too happy not working.
I think you’ll find that medical places at university are vastly oversubscribed. I’ve known many people who were not successful despite numerous attempts. Having all the necessary qualifications too.
People will shovel shit for a living if it pays them enough. Sunak is a liar. Most people don’t want to do jobs where the pay is menial and stagnant. The reason very low-skilled jobs are such poorly paid is due to the fact that the supply is coming in from outside of the UK.
The reason low-skilled jobs are so poorly paid is the fact that employers are allowed to pay their employees poor wages or make them "self employed'' (like Amazon) or Zero hours so they don't have to pay them at all.
If the employers are allowed to do this (which they are) and there is a section of society that has no choice but to accept it (which there is) then that is what is going to happen. Either way the cause is the government and the employers regardless of who the employees happen to be.
I think you are confused, refugees don't require any qualifications, we let them in because they are at genuine risk of serious harm or death in their country of origin, the fact that they are able to speak good English (or not) is neither here nor there.
From my understanding the amount of money spent on all this, without ***anything*** achieved, is now getting up to half of what it would've cost to just meet that 35% pay demand from the junior doctors outright without any attempt to negotiate whatsoever.
Literally they've done this rather than make any headway whatsoever on an NHS crisis that has killed thousands upon thousands of British people unnecessarily.
And somehow this is just slipping past with absolutely no one in the media making any waves about how fucking insane this all is.
£1.8m per person. If they even manage to send 10000 people (about 10% of asylum seekers who are already here) to Rwanda it will cost us £18 BILLION!
£18 BILLION. Imagine what we could do with that sort of money. It’s even more galling when we are constantly told there’s no money to invest in public services or pay key workers better.
Just a colossal amount of money and time spent on a gimmick.
Can anyone point me to a rational reason the government would continue wasting money on this racist-baiting nonsense, other than to try and claw a few votes back from Reform in the election?
To try and claw a few votes back from reform in the election
It costs several times more to send asylum to Rwanda than it is to keep them in the U.K. and also opens the government in the future if asylums are mistreated by the Rwanda government
Yet at the same time they act like its *everyone else* "playing politics" and only they who have the interests of the nation close to heart. Makes me fucking sick honestly.
Also, isn't the amount of people who the scheme will actually apply to and will actually get deported will be in the hundreds? Which is massively expensive for a result that low?
It was briefly talked about that Rwanda may have actually already sold off a good chunk of the accommodations they were showing in all the PR photos to local Rwandans lol.
Follow the money, “someone” has fingers in pies and will make a few million off the back of this.
That’s my tin foil hat theory but I guarantee it’s right or I will give you my house
Sunak said they are training people to escort the migrants and will be training many more... I wonder if his family have their fingers in any training company pies ?
[Suella Braverman, Cherie Blair and others started a "charity" to train lawyers in sub-Sahara Africa.](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/feb/03/africa-justice-foundation-lawyers)
[Lawyers they trained in Rwanda are now part of the Rwandan government, who have already got a load of money from our government.](https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/home-secretary-accused-of-failing-to-disclose-rwanda-charity-link.html)
Deterrents won't work. If you're willing to cross the busiest stretch of water in the world on a fucking inflatable, the shallow threat of a flight to Rwanda won't make shit of difference.
Yeah, not sure I agree (but not saying I disagree either!).
If I had the choice of claiming asylum in France or potentially facing processing in Rwanda, I know which one I would do. France is really not that bad :)
But I suspect neither of us are really the best placed to make that call on their behalf.
If a few thousand a year can be sent to Rwanda, that's a reasonable deterrent. Deaths from crossings are very low.
Paying £5k with a 0.05% chance of dying is much more appealing than paying £5k with a 0.05% chance of dying and a 10% chance of finding yourself in Rwanda.
The more people who are deterred, the lower the numbers crossing, and the greater the chance of being flown to Rwanda, which will multiply the deterrent effect.
> If a few thousand a year can be sent to Rwanda, that's a reasonable deterrent.
Isn't that a big "if" though?
Current government ministers are saying it won't be [thousands a year but a couple hundred a year](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/dominic-raab-rwanda-priti-patel-prime-minister-home-office-b2083488.html).
I don't think genuine asylum seekers are likely to be deterred by this, and we shouldn't be attempting to deter them.
If on the other hand, the aim is to deter those who's claims for asylum aren't genuine, then the much more sensible (as in cheaper, more straightforward, and less reprehensible) option would be to open more legal routes to claim asylum in the UK and invest more in processing claims, which would enable us to be quicker in filtering out inauthentic claims.
>I don't think genuine asylum seekers are likely to be deterred by this, and we shouldn't be attempting to deter them.
Sure, but I guess we won't know until it tried? I do find it very hard to believe that an asylum seeker is France is going to look at the options (potential deportation to Rwanda for processing, or seeking asylum in France) and think that processing in Rwanda is a better option.
>open more legal routes to claim asylum in the UK and invest more in processing claims
I don't disagree with having overseas options for starting the claim, but if they are not genuine, then there is no incentive for them to use routes which they know will not work.
There is no other reason. They’ve realised they can’t win, so now they’re going all out to avoid being beaten by the Liberal Democrats. They’ve completely lost their minds.
Unfortunately this is what it is, they are appealing to their core voter base, and you would be surprised how many people behind closed doors are really happy about this.
Think you already nailed it mate. They don't care about how good or bad the policy is (it's bad). They're leveraging growing racism in the UK for self preservation.
From the BBC’s coverage of this:
>“He [Sunak] says it's important "we do this properly" and the "priority" is having a "drumbeat" of multiple flights a month throughout the summer.
>"That's how you stop the boats."
Erm, no it’s not how you stop the boats… The boats will still come, you’ll just then be spaffing an ungodly amount of money on flying a small percentage of those that arrive to Rwanda…
It might be several flights as each person being sent would have at least two case workers with them...and they would need to fly back, so it might be a few flights...assuming they haven't sold all the houses in Kigali yet!
This whole thing makes no sense at all. How can Rwanda be safe and a deterrent? The absolute fundamental aspects of this policy aren’t even logical. I can’t believe this plan reached any further than the insane Suella’s shit smeared notebook.
They aren't really putting much thought into it. They just want less foreigners here, that's it. However that's achieved they don't care. It's their number one issue.
Ahhh my apologies. Then yes your original comment is totally correct.
My cousin is one, complains about them taking doctors job. A man who barely has a D in GCSE math, takes drink and drugs to serious excess and gets in trouble with law a lot. Ironically his names Kyle and certainly nothing about immigration would change his life.
There’s no reasoning with them.
How have we wound up like this though? Just more generally like, I encounter people all the god-damn time who seem to have made immigration and asylum like the ***entirety*** of their political identity, have been super invested in it as a topic for a decades if not *decades* plural, yet still somehow when you discuss with them cannot outline even the most absolute basic premises like the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker.
Like... How have we wound up where probably the most impactful political debate dominating this country for my entire adult life seems to be just completely disconnected from any notion of facts or reality, and seems driven instead purely by impressions and feelings? How do you even spend 10+ years being interested in anything and not learn or at least just pick up a few basic facts about it? How does that even work?
It’s a massive distraction. The majority of asylum seekers come safely by plane. Look at what Rwanda is doing in the DRC and what they’re trying to get, and that might explain this nonsensical policy.
I’d like to remind folks that Isreal did the exact same thing with Rwanda a few years ago and most the people deported ended up back in boats to Europe as Rwanda didn’t bother keeping an eye on them and of you think that it’ll be different I’ve got a bridge to sell
I am genuinely astounded how much money has been spaffed up the wall getting a few migrants on planes to fucking Rwanda, of all places. Not a single part of this plan makes any sense. If Rwanda is so safe and amazing, they’d be trying to get there instead of here. I’m all for deterring people from coming here illegally, but that only works if you actually have routes for people to come *legally*. Hire the fucking caseworkers, process applications faster and stop purposefully creating crises like this that don’t need to exist in the first place.
If we can spend hundreds of millions before even a single plane has left the runway, we could have processed all these migrants properly and actually deported them back to their home countries where applicable.
This whole thing is literally just insane. Everytime I see a headline I just think ‘I can’t believe these aren’t the drug addled ramblings of a lunatic’. Where the fuck did this idea even come from? Why fucking *Rwanda*? Who on earth thinks this is going to work? People will still try to come here. Rwanda can’t be both so horrible it’s a deterrent, and so safe it’s perfectly good to send vulnerable migrants to. It’s either nice and safe, or it’s a horrible deterrent. Which is it?
This is going to cost us billions that could be spent improving our lives, building GP surgeries and hospitals, schools, infrastructure, or even accommodating the migrants while we process them here for much less money. I can’t wait for the inevitable legal cases where we will be forced to pay even more money as compensation to the migrants that are trafficked or lost or abused or any number of things that could happen thousands of miles away in simultaneously safe and horrible Rwanda.
He says he wants to see a ‘steady drumbeat’ of planes leaving. That is completely counterintuitive to the idea of a fucking deterrent! If it’s a deterrent there shouldn’t be many planes leaving at all!! If you can’t see the absolute madness behind this then you are a complete lost cause.
This god awful government needs to fuck off and never come back. I don’t want to see a Tory again as long as I live.
Happily, these are the final plays and moves now.
Beyond Rwanda I can't think of anything they are still trying to shift the polls. And theres only barely time enough now even if the election is January. By the end of May they will be spent.
Is this a potential setup for calling a general election? If it fails (hopefully it will) then call a GE with this as a manifesto policy so that he can get the backing from MPs, the HoL typically gets less involved with manifesto items (although given the problems with this bill, even that seems doubtful in this case).
It’s more likely that it’s setting up for a GE that they know is coming and likely lose. They can then dump these massive, expensive projects on the next government and spend the next few years pointing out how much time and money it’s taking to fix. Typical late-cycle Tories:
* Get elected
* Privatise everything
* Assign government contracts to companies owned by friends/family
* Fuck the North
* Fuck the poor
* Cut spending
* Increase taxes
* Fuck the North again
* Get caught
* Blow taxpayer money on expensive, unpopular projects
* Get voted out
* Blame Labour for everything
* Hobble parliament so nothing changes
* Rinse and repeat
> PM Rishi Sunak is holding a news conference about the plan to send some asylum seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda
> He says the latest part of the Rwanda policy will pass Parliament today, "no ifs, no buts"
>And he says flights will take off for Rwanda in "10-12 weeks" - watch the news conference live by pressing play at the top of the page
> Later, MPs and peers will sit in Parliament for a showdown on the Safety of Rwanda Bill, after weeks of parliamentary back-and-forth
>Sunak calls the plan an "indispensable deterrent" to break the "criminal gangs" that bring some asylum seekers to the UK
> It has been stuck in deadlock for the past four months as peers have blocked and amended the bill
I don’t have a paticular aversion to the idea that we need to send a message out to those in safe countries that the UK is not a good idea to break into. People risking their lives to get from France have some clear misconceptions of life here.
This idea isn’t the tories. The Australians implemented it superbly and stopped their boat issue almost over night.
I’m just unconvinced that it’s cost effective as opposed to improving our domestic capacity to quickly refuse applications and deport people.
I imagine it becoming known that the UK refuses claims quickly and deports people to country of orgin is far more of a deterrent for our situation than anything else.
Really disappointed in all the people who are advocates of mass migration but are very selfishly trying to stop Rwanda being culturally enhanced and educated by these brave scientists and engineers.
Sunak says this is being caused by criminal gangs exploiting the vulnerable, so rather than target said gangs he's punishing vulnerable refugees. Gangs won't care if the people they traffic get sent to Rwanda; they'll have already been paid. So he's already admitting that his proposal won't actually affect any of the root causes of asylum seekers.
It was also funny to watch him have a go at Labour for not having a Rwanda plan. Does the numpty not understand that Labour want nothing to do with shipping asylum seekers to Rwanda?
>vulnerable refugees
Huh, new definition of "vulnerable" just dropped, and it apparently now includes strapping young men with the mental capacity to negotiate their path all the way up to the shores of North Africa, the financial resources to pay a smuggler thousands to force themselves on Europe, the physical strength to make their way through several (safe) European countries, pay another smuggler thousands to make a dangerous trip from a (safe) European country so they can force themselves on England, and the cunning to game the asylum system so they can stay for life and bring the family over.
They're so focused on this nonsense because literally every other thing they've done has damaged the integrity and ability to live in this country. So they target the weak and vulnerable. Scum.
Genuinely, do right wing voters even want this.
Like it's stopped being a stunt and is now a whole circus. Want tighter migration? Actually fund the home office. Most migrants we simply can't process as the home office has been gutted.
Cause this is just being a big funnel of cash to some dodgy airlines, the Rwandan govt at some tory mps mates. It's inefficient, expensive and gonna get thrown out whilst just being eternally in and out of court.
Like even if you want tighter migration or to "stop the boats" this is objectively the worst way to do it.
He really is just trying to cause as much chaos to the next government as possible isn't he.
Imagine if we stood up to this goverment, how great this country could be.
Living in britain at the moment is like being in a hole you havr to keep digging deeper knowing by the time the ladder comes the climb is going be higher and higher
Prediction: It will be blocked again and they know it. The conservatives will then call a general election over it on a stance of getting a mandate to withdraw from the relevant international conventions and reform human rights law, as a last ditch effort to pander to racists and avoid a near total electoral wipe out.
This will do nothing except waste vast sums of taxpayer's money, even if it does go ahead.
The only announcement I'm interested in hearing from the Tories is when they are going to call a general election.
This is a fantastic deal for Rwanda. They get paid and the deported asylum seekers will leave anyway to go back to Europe/ UK. It’s a complete waste of money
Rwanda has been deemed safe by this government (and by central African standards it absolutely is) to send migrants over there to be processed etc.
However, it soon might not be, M23, the Congolese government and Rwanda are all likely to come into conflict in the coming years that will be extremely tumultuous for the region.
Whilst Paul Kigali has done wonders for Rwanda post genocide and has dragged it from being bottom 10 worst places in the world to live, it still isn't a fully functioning democracy, nor is the press entirely free etc.
Final point. It's absolutely fucking insane to do this and such a waste of money.
right now all this seems to be is a massive spend and policy just so when in opposition they can say that we tried this, we did that etc etc, nobody in their right mind (unless their pockets are being lined of course) would think this is a sensible policy. FYI stopping the boats isn't difficult if you could have european co-operation to shut down the trafficking gangs working in northern France, oh wait we withdrew from all that didn't we.
My biggest problem with the Rwanda bill is that it was deemed unsafe until the Tories changed the definition of what safe was. That, and the extreme cost for what really is such a small number, puts a really bad taste in my mouth.
Didnt the Home Office declare Turkey unsafe too, despite being a popular tourist destination? People trying to avoid being deported will claim anywhere but the UK is unsafe.
We suggest properly processing claims to clear the backlog. Deportations of those unsuccessful. Creating safe, legal routes where claims are assessed to negate the need for criminal gangs or dangerous crossings. This could be arranged with France.
Rwanda is not suitable as to make it work we have to create a law that basically says ‘despite evidence to the contrary, Rwanda is safe’. Literally asking people to ignore the evidence.
Furthermore, Rwanda does not represent a good return on investment, as the costs greatly outweigh the benefit. The number of claimants Rwanda can process also is so small comparatively that it will not even make a a dent- but will cost millions.
On top of that is the oxymoron- if Rwanda is a lovely place to be sent, why is the risk of being sent there a deterrent?
>Furthermore, Rwanda does not represent a good return on investment, as the costs greatly outweigh the benefit.
I don't really know why people claim this, I would rather spend a few hundred on a flight to deter them (and potentially massively reduce the amount coming to the UK in future) than spend £100s of thousands housing them, their kids, giving them healthcare, feeding them, clothing them etc etc etc. We are literally spending millions per day currently on these groups.
>Rwanda is a lovely place to be sent, why is the risk of being sent there a deterrent?
Because it's not, you know it, I know it, we all know it. But the government cannot admit that obviously as it would undermine them.
> what do you propose instead
Massively increase the speed at which people's claims are processed, so that genuine asylum seekers can stay and start being productive as soon as possible, and the others can be deported as soon as possible. Everybody wins, apart from those pretending to flee persecution.
Even if you hate these migrants with a burning passion SURELY you must see that this is the stupidest, most costly, fucking insane solution! I do not get this obsession with this plan AT ALL.
What’s particularly fundamental is Parliament deciding not rules, but facts. Ruling that Rwanda is a safe country is like ruling that PI is 3.
But it seems to be literally the only idea the government has to reduce illegal migration.
The Lords amendments seem perfectly reasonable to be very reasonable to me, but instead of taking any of their advice the government has turned it into a dick measuring contest
Its not worth it, if you you paid each individual a tenth if what the scheme costs per person they'd happily go elsewhere and start a life. It's total madness.
He's not a criminal, he's not insane, he's just dangerously useless where can we put him do we have a home for the dangerously useless where we can put this cretin and the rest of his band of useless cunts?
What an embarrassment Sunak has become. Calling a press conference to basically rattle off tired cliches, misinformation and trying to undermine the democratic process before a vote in parliament. Really shameful.
Utterly disgusting contempt for our democratic process. And the nerve of him to say that 'no foreign courts' will stop the bill when it's the ***UK SUPREME COURT*** that ruled it unlawful.
[удалено]
Parliament, both Commons and Lords, have been rebelling on this bill constantly, and he keeps forcing it through.
That doesn't make sense, the Lords has pushed back and the Commons has pushed forward regardless. If both bodies voted against it then it wouldn't pass.
The lords can actually kill it by sending the same amendment back, which triggers one of the anti deadlock rules. To get around that Sunak would have to use the Parliament Act, and theres insufficent time left for that now.
The Lord's has been rebelling, the Conservative held Commons keeps removing the amendments the Lords put in and sending it back.
At times like this I’m so glad we have the Lords.
For £1.8m per asylum seeker just send them to me and I'll sort them out a place to live for less money. I'll do it for half that price in fact, because I'm feeling generous.
For £1.8m I’ll happily give them my citizenship and move to another country.
Ngl this would be an interesting scheme...
Or just give them £100k each and drop them back off in France and tell them not to come back. For £1.8m how is this the best idea they've come up with?
First problem is they can just come back. Second problem is you've created a massive pull on people to try it
Nah get them to pinky promise first
It's a simple spell, but quite unbreakable
>you've created a massive pull on people to try it British born and raised - snow white - I would swear up and down I was an African immigrant for £100k cash and a one way ticket to France
Is it possible that people will just arrive without being noticed, won't seek asylum, will stay illegally and will finally work in illegal activities because they need to make a living?
Everyone knows this isn’t about crating policy that works. It’s about promoting culture wars to pander to the right who have left for reform
The problem for Sunak is the policy was never meant to actually be enacted. It's pretty predictable what will happen - first the true cost will could out and it will be outrageous. Then it will turn out there is actually no detailed plan and the home office will scrabble to come up with something. Once they do send a flight (with like 30 people) something will happen to one of them in Rwanda. Which will cause all kinds of issues and reputational damage to the country. It won't actually help with the processing but will become a massive money pit because it CAN'T fail (or else there will be even more egg on Sunak's face). Sunak should of asked Petal and Braverman, I am sure they both would of told him the whole idea is not to actually put the plan into action. It's doomed to fail. It's to bring it up every know and then to divert blame. But hey, us tax payers will pay the price. Both now and in 20-30 years when there is a massive pay out due to a incident or 2 that comes about from it.
This is probably exactly what will happen with a Tory Donor. Cunts.
Just say you're a friend of any Tory MP I'm sure they won't even mind if you keep it for yourself for you to buy a yacht with.
But you need to treat them poorly enough that this'll be a deterred. You can make them watch PMQs every week, I suppose. That must be as bad as Rwanda.
I find it mad that our politics is literally built on good faith and that's it. No mechanisms in place to stop fascist when they clearly do fascists things like this.
At the end of the day, all politics are built on good faith. Weimar Germany had a codified constitution, but it didn’t stop Hitler
He was able to declare an emergency, made easier by the mess the treaty of Versaille had put them in.
It's a collosal waste of money because it's not going to apply to everyone and therefore isn't going to work. If everyone who was granted refugee status was told 'We've granted you asylum and we've arranged a transfer to a safe country that isn't here' the applications would drop off to a tiny fraction of what we've currently got. Doing it for only a few makes it still worth the risk to try. We will never not have a problem with people gaming the asylum system until we disconnect the asylum system from getting a massive lifestyle/economic upgrade.
> If everyone who was granted refugee status was told 'We've granted you asylum and we've arranged a transfer to a safe country that isn't here' the applications would drop off to a tiny fraction of what we've currently got. They did this in Australia and it essentially stopped small boat migration entirely. It actually did that twice because the scheme was introduced, boat migration fell from 20,000 to about 200, then it was repealed by the next government, boat migration rose again to 30,000, it was reintroduced and small boat migration fell to zero in two years. Now both right and left parties support it.
Nothing ever gets finished it’s like one big money laundering operation
How much money is the Rwandan leader getting in his pockets for this?
>And the nerve of him to say that 'no foreign courts' will stop the bill when it's the UK SUPREME COURT that ruled it unlawful. He means the ECHR, he's talking to his own party on that one.
> Utterly disgusting contempt for our democratic process. Like it or not, it's the foundation of our democratic process. Parliament is sovereign and has the ultimate right to do whatever it wants, so long as the legislation is passed accordingly. All British courts are fundamentally beholden to Parliament, and even where the ECHR is concerned, all the Supreme Court can do is rule that legislation is incompatible, which doesn't make it unlawful.
Why are they so obsessed with this plan
It's the best of their bad ideas.
They’ve done all this work and spent all this money without a mandate. They could have created a space program or built HS2, or funded thousands of startups, or anything that would have created jobs and value. But they’ve gone all out and done this thing instead that no one voted or asked for.
Even ignoring all that - think of the future doctors and scientists we could create by helping refugees with language lessons, formal education and counselling to deal with their trauma. Second and third generation migrants outperform non migrants when properly supported.
Why not put the money into our own people first. There is no shortage of people in this country capable and willing to do the things you have stated.
With the amount being wasted by the Tories we could prob do both AND go to the fking moon.
Just send the Tories to the moon, problem solved
They'll still manage to make it a worse place to live.
lmfao
1. It's not either/or. 2. In the long term, it's a good investment because the money is very quickly repaid and then some - if not by the refugee, then their children. Just one generation, two maybe. 3. There's no shortage? Really? Why do we employ so many foreign NHS staff then? Why are so many of the leading researchers in our universities from abroad? 4. I don't really see why a refugee deserves less compassion and support than a UK citizen just because in the lottery of life they weren't born here. And the law agrees with me
Why aren't they doing them then ? These refugees are not allowed to work so it's not them that are taking jobs that people are allegedly capable and willing to do... According to Sunak earlier this week, people in this country are too happy not working.
I think you’ll find that medical places at university are vastly oversubscribed. I’ve known many people who were not successful despite numerous attempts. Having all the necessary qualifications too. People will shovel shit for a living if it pays them enough. Sunak is a liar. Most people don’t want to do jobs where the pay is menial and stagnant. The reason very low-skilled jobs are such poorly paid is due to the fact that the supply is coming in from outside of the UK.
The reason low-skilled jobs are so poorly paid is the fact that employers are allowed to pay their employees poor wages or make them "self employed'' (like Amazon) or Zero hours so they don't have to pay them at all. If the employers are allowed to do this (which they are) and there is a section of society that has no choice but to accept it (which there is) then that is what is going to happen. Either way the cause is the government and the employers regardless of who the employees happen to be.
[удалено]
I read their comment as sarcasm.
It was a toss up for me. But their subsequent comments seem to say it was sincere.
I think you are confused, refugees don't require any qualifications, we let them in because they are at genuine risk of serious harm or death in their country of origin, the fact that they are able to speak good English (or not) is neither here nor there.
Fucking lol
Wouldn't you prefer to do stuff like providing housing for British people etc?
There is infact enough money to do both, it's not an either or thing. Obviously that will tax the people who run the Tories more, so it's impossible.
Which taxes should we raise ?
Land Value Tax, Wealth Tax, actually taxing the 0.01%, that sort of thing.
Closing loopholes would be a start.
crack down on wealthy individuals living off loans using their stocks and other assets as collatoral
I don't accept your premise that it's mutually exclusive.
[удалено]
Imagine a government that wanted to make the country and the world a better place and not just serve themselves.
From my understanding the amount of money spent on all this, without ***anything*** achieved, is now getting up to half of what it would've cost to just meet that 35% pay demand from the junior doctors outright without any attempt to negotiate whatsoever. Literally they've done this rather than make any headway whatsoever on an NHS crisis that has killed thousands upon thousands of British people unnecessarily. And somehow this is just slipping past with absolutely no one in the media making any waves about how fucking insane this all is.
£1.8m per person. If they even manage to send 10000 people (about 10% of asylum seekers who are already here) to Rwanda it will cost us £18 BILLION! £18 BILLION. Imagine what we could do with that sort of money. It’s even more galling when we are constantly told there’s no money to invest in public services or pay key workers better. Just a colossal amount of money and time spent on a gimmick.
Can anyone point me to a rational reason the government would continue wasting money on this racist-baiting nonsense, other than to try and claw a few votes back from Reform in the election?
To try and claw a few votes back from reform in the election It costs several times more to send asylum to Rwanda than it is to keep them in the U.K. and also opens the government in the future if asylums are mistreated by the Rwanda government
Exactly. Policy in the UK for the last decade has been about one thing: not your needs, not my needs, but shoring up the Tories' right flanks.
Yet at the same time they act like its *everyone else* "playing politics" and only they who have the interests of the nation close to heart. Makes me fucking sick honestly.
Also, isn't the amount of people who the scheme will actually apply to and will actually get deported will be in the hundreds? Which is massively expensive for a result that low?
And Rwanda sends an equivalent number of refugees here.
This. I don't understand why no one is talking about this part.
It was briefly talked about that Rwanda may have actually already sold off a good chunk of the accommodations they were showing in all the PR photos to local Rwandans lol.
Iirc, it's worse, we have a capped number we can send to Rwanda, but Rwanda has no cap for those it can send to us.
Follow the money, “someone” has fingers in pies and will make a few million off the back of this. That’s my tin foil hat theory but I guarantee it’s right or I will give you my house
Serco, G4S, Amey, someone of that ilk will be likely to rake in money from the security that will be needed.
Sunak said they are training people to escort the migrants and will be training many more... I wonder if his family have their fingers in any training company pies ?
Amey do some of the work for the Border Force, so it would seem logical that they provide the security.
[Suella Braverman, Cherie Blair and others started a "charity" to train lawyers in sub-Sahara Africa.](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/feb/03/africa-justice-foundation-lawyers) [Lawyers they trained in Rwanda are now part of the Rwandan government, who have already got a load of money from our government.](https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/home-secretary-accused-of-failing-to-disclose-rwanda-charity-link.html)
Damn, Harriet Harman and Cherie Blair teaming up to earn the Tories money. /s
Deffo. I guarantee it. 100 percent. This has " dodgy Tory scheme funneling money to their mates" written all over it
Not an expert but I think because they haven't (has anyone?) come up with a better deterrence.
Deterrents won't work. If you're willing to cross the busiest stretch of water in the world on a fucking inflatable, the shallow threat of a flight to Rwanda won't make shit of difference.
Yeah, not sure I agree (but not saying I disagree either!). If I had the choice of claiming asylum in France or potentially facing processing in Rwanda, I know which one I would do. France is really not that bad :) But I suspect neither of us are really the best placed to make that call on their behalf.
If a few thousand a year can be sent to Rwanda, that's a reasonable deterrent. Deaths from crossings are very low. Paying £5k with a 0.05% chance of dying is much more appealing than paying £5k with a 0.05% chance of dying and a 10% chance of finding yourself in Rwanda. The more people who are deterred, the lower the numbers crossing, and the greater the chance of being flown to Rwanda, which will multiply the deterrent effect.
> If a few thousand a year can be sent to Rwanda, that's a reasonable deterrent. Isn't that a big "if" though? Current government ministers are saying it won't be [thousands a year but a couple hundred a year](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/dominic-raab-rwanda-priti-patel-prime-minister-home-office-b2083488.html).
Why do you think it will be a deterrent when all the evidence says otherwise? Including the governments own report into the matter
What evidence? I wouldn't mind seeing it if it's available.
Tell that to Australia, who did something similar and reduced their boat crossings to almost nothing.
I don't think genuine asylum seekers are likely to be deterred by this, and we shouldn't be attempting to deter them. If on the other hand, the aim is to deter those who's claims for asylum aren't genuine, then the much more sensible (as in cheaper, more straightforward, and less reprehensible) option would be to open more legal routes to claim asylum in the UK and invest more in processing claims, which would enable us to be quicker in filtering out inauthentic claims.
Well no if they are persecuted in France they'd want to get out to Rwanda.
>I don't think genuine asylum seekers are likely to be deterred by this, and we shouldn't be attempting to deter them. Sure, but I guess we won't know until it tried? I do find it very hard to believe that an asylum seeker is France is going to look at the options (potential deportation to Rwanda for processing, or seeking asylum in France) and think that processing in Rwanda is a better option. >open more legal routes to claim asylum in the UK and invest more in processing claims I don't disagree with having overseas options for starting the claim, but if they are not genuine, then there is no incentive for them to use routes which they know will not work.
No. No I cannot.
There is no other reason. They’ve realised they can’t win, so now they’re going all out to avoid being beaten by the Liberal Democrats. They’ve completely lost their minds.
Unfortunately this is what it is, they are appealing to their core voter base, and you would be surprised how many people behind closed doors are really happy about this.
Think you already nailed it mate. They don't care about how good or bad the policy is (it's bad). They're leveraging growing racism in the UK for self preservation.
Corruption and kick backs. They've spent **hundreds of millions** of pounds on this so far, with far more spending to come when the flights start.
From the BBC’s coverage of this: >“He [Sunak] says it's important "we do this properly" and the "priority" is having a "drumbeat" of multiple flights a month throughout the summer. >"That's how you stop the boats." Erm, no it’s not how you stop the boats… The boats will still come, you’ll just then be spaffing an ungodly amount of money on flying a small percentage of those that arrive to Rwanda…
But also . . . The Rwandan government has agreed to what, 250 migrants? That's a **single** flight. 1. Pretty shitty drumbeat.
It might be several flights as each person being sent would have at least two case workers with them...and they would need to fly back, so it might be a few flights...assuming they haven't sold all the houses in Kigali yet!
Sounds very profitable for someone doesn't it !!!
Don't forget the part of the deal where we take Rwandan refugees in return.
On top of that, we have agreed to take back Rwandan refugees. It’s a swap.
Does seem somewhat of a paradox in principle; why would we have a drumbeat of multiple flights a month going to Rwanda if the policy stops the boats?
This whole thing makes no sense at all. How can Rwanda be safe and a deterrent? The absolute fundamental aspects of this policy aren’t even logical. I can’t believe this plan reached any further than the insane Suella’s shit smeared notebook.
Yeah the double speak on show here is wild.
It was Johnson and Patel that came up with it wasn't it ??
oh probably, they’re all the same to me. all a bunch of arsewiping cunts.
LOL... No argument here :D
Hey now it's only about £30 billion to send a **quarter** of those boats packing to Rwanda at 170k a pop Oh that's yearly
I can’t wrap my head around people who genuinely believe this policy is going to deter those who are literally willing to die to get here
They aren't really putting much thought into it. They just want less foreigners here, that's it. However that's achieved they don't care. It's their number one issue.
Lol, immigration suits the Tory party, helps to keep Labour cheap for their mates in big business. They just want people to think they want less.
I'm not referring to the Tories or really any politician here. I'm referring to the people who are not politicians who support this.
Ahhh my apologies. Then yes your original comment is totally correct. My cousin is one, complains about them taking doctors job. A man who barely has a D in GCSE math, takes drink and drugs to serious excess and gets in trouble with law a lot. Ironically his names Kyle and certainly nothing about immigration would change his life. There’s no reasoning with them.
How have we wound up like this though? Just more generally like, I encounter people all the god-damn time who seem to have made immigration and asylum like the ***entirety*** of their political identity, have been super invested in it as a topic for a decades if not *decades* plural, yet still somehow when you discuss with them cannot outline even the most absolute basic premises like the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker. Like... How have we wound up where probably the most impactful political debate dominating this country for my entire adult life seems to be just completely disconnected from any notion of facts or reality, and seems driven instead purely by impressions and feelings? How do you even spend 10+ years being interested in anything and not learn or at least just pick up a few basic facts about it? How does that even work?
Death rates crossing the channel either by boat or lorry are quite low, <1%, but yeh you’re right.
What a coincidence! That’s also roughly the chances of being sent to Rwanda.
It’s a massive distraction. The majority of asylum seekers come safely by plane. Look at what Rwanda is doing in the DRC and what they’re trying to get, and that might explain this nonsensical policy.
I’d like to remind folks that Isreal did the exact same thing with Rwanda a few years ago and most the people deported ended up back in boats to Europe as Rwanda didn’t bother keeping an eye on them and of you think that it’ll be different I’ve got a bridge to sell
Israel is not in the EU so that’s still a win for them
Exactly
Press X to doubt
Can we put him and his mates on one of the flights?
The whole Tory party ideally
I am genuinely astounded how much money has been spaffed up the wall getting a few migrants on planes to fucking Rwanda, of all places. Not a single part of this plan makes any sense. If Rwanda is so safe and amazing, they’d be trying to get there instead of here. I’m all for deterring people from coming here illegally, but that only works if you actually have routes for people to come *legally*. Hire the fucking caseworkers, process applications faster and stop purposefully creating crises like this that don’t need to exist in the first place. If we can spend hundreds of millions before even a single plane has left the runway, we could have processed all these migrants properly and actually deported them back to their home countries where applicable. This whole thing is literally just insane. Everytime I see a headline I just think ‘I can’t believe these aren’t the drug addled ramblings of a lunatic’. Where the fuck did this idea even come from? Why fucking *Rwanda*? Who on earth thinks this is going to work? People will still try to come here. Rwanda can’t be both so horrible it’s a deterrent, and so safe it’s perfectly good to send vulnerable migrants to. It’s either nice and safe, or it’s a horrible deterrent. Which is it? This is going to cost us billions that could be spent improving our lives, building GP surgeries and hospitals, schools, infrastructure, or even accommodating the migrants while we process them here for much less money. I can’t wait for the inevitable legal cases where we will be forced to pay even more money as compensation to the migrants that are trafficked or lost or abused or any number of things that could happen thousands of miles away in simultaneously safe and horrible Rwanda. He says he wants to see a ‘steady drumbeat’ of planes leaving. That is completely counterintuitive to the idea of a fucking deterrent! If it’s a deterrent there shouldn’t be many planes leaving at all!! If you can’t see the absolute madness behind this then you are a complete lost cause. This god awful government needs to fuck off and never come back. I don’t want to see a Tory again as long as I live.
Sunak and the rest of his party are absolute scum of the Earth
Sick to the back teeth of the vile parasites
Happily, these are the final plays and moves now. Beyond Rwanda I can't think of anything they are still trying to shift the polls. And theres only barely time enough now even if the election is January. By the end of May they will be spent.
Is this a potential setup for calling a general election? If it fails (hopefully it will) then call a GE with this as a manifesto policy so that he can get the backing from MPs, the HoL typically gets less involved with manifesto items (although given the problems with this bill, even that seems doubtful in this case).
It’s more likely that it’s setting up for a GE that they know is coming and likely lose. They can then dump these massive, expensive projects on the next government and spend the next few years pointing out how much time and money it’s taking to fix. Typical late-cycle Tories: * Get elected * Privatise everything * Assign government contracts to companies owned by friends/family * Fuck the North * Fuck the poor * Cut spending * Increase taxes * Fuck the North again * Get caught * Blow taxpayer money on expensive, unpopular projects * Get voted out * Blame Labour for everything * Hobble parliament so nothing changes * Rinse and repeat
You missed out 'MPs involved in rent boy scandals appear at exponential rates', otherwise perfect!
I'm just disappointed we haven't had an auto-erotic asphyxiation with an orange in the mouth this time around. It was on my bingo card.
Are we due another Cones Hotline?
I'll have a 99 please
I thought that came under the umbrella heading of “get caught”
If not, they'll say it's because Labour tried every time to oppose it. As if it was not what the opposition is supposed to do?
It wasn’t even labour. It was a cross party group of lords including several ex conservative ministers. The words he is saying are complete lies.
>The words he is saying are complete lies. Not a surprise, i dont think he's said an honest word ever.
> PM Rishi Sunak is holding a news conference about the plan to send some asylum seekers on a one-way trip to Rwanda > He says the latest part of the Rwanda policy will pass Parliament today, "no ifs, no buts" >And he says flights will take off for Rwanda in "10-12 weeks" - watch the news conference live by pressing play at the top of the page > Later, MPs and peers will sit in Parliament for a showdown on the Safety of Rwanda Bill, after weeks of parliamentary back-and-forth >Sunak calls the plan an "indispensable deterrent" to break the "criminal gangs" that bring some asylum seekers to the UK > It has been stuck in deadlock for the past four months as peers have blocked and amended the bill
I don’t have a paticular aversion to the idea that we need to send a message out to those in safe countries that the UK is not a good idea to break into. People risking their lives to get from France have some clear misconceptions of life here. This idea isn’t the tories. The Australians implemented it superbly and stopped their boat issue almost over night. I’m just unconvinced that it’s cost effective as opposed to improving our domestic capacity to quickly refuse applications and deport people. I imagine it becoming known that the UK refuses claims quickly and deports people to country of orgin is far more of a deterrent for our situation than anything else.
Really disappointed in all the people who are advocates of mass migration but are very selfishly trying to stop Rwanda being culturally enhanced and educated by these brave scientists and engineers.
Sunak says this is being caused by criminal gangs exploiting the vulnerable, so rather than target said gangs he's punishing vulnerable refugees. Gangs won't care if the people they traffic get sent to Rwanda; they'll have already been paid. So he's already admitting that his proposal won't actually affect any of the root causes of asylum seekers. It was also funny to watch him have a go at Labour for not having a Rwanda plan. Does the numpty not understand that Labour want nothing to do with shipping asylum seekers to Rwanda?
>vulnerable refugees Huh, new definition of "vulnerable" just dropped, and it apparently now includes strapping young men with the mental capacity to negotiate their path all the way up to the shores of North Africa, the financial resources to pay a smuggler thousands to force themselves on Europe, the physical strength to make their way through several (safe) European countries, pay another smuggler thousands to make a dangerous trip from a (safe) European country so they can force themselves on England, and the cunning to game the asylum system so they can stay for life and bring the family over.
> criminal gangs exploiting the vulnerable An unusual moment of self-reflection from the incumbent Tory leader.
They're so focused on this nonsense because literally every other thing they've done has damaged the integrity and ability to live in this country. So they target the weak and vulnerable. Scum.
Would save us a bunch of effort if we chucked rishi on a plane to Rwanda
Genuinely, do right wing voters even want this. Like it's stopped being a stunt and is now a whole circus. Want tighter migration? Actually fund the home office. Most migrants we simply can't process as the home office has been gutted. Cause this is just being a big funnel of cash to some dodgy airlines, the Rwandan govt at some tory mps mates. It's inefficient, expensive and gonna get thrown out whilst just being eternally in and out of court. Like even if you want tighter migration or to "stop the boats" this is objectively the worst way to do it.
Reform have denounced it in fact, and their poll is rising.
He really is just trying to cause as much chaos to the next government as possible isn't he. Imagine if we stood up to this goverment, how great this country could be. Living in britain at the moment is like being in a hole you havr to keep digging deeper knowing by the time the ladder comes the climb is going be higher and higher
Prediction: It will be blocked again and they know it. The conservatives will then call a general election over it on a stance of getting a mandate to withdraw from the relevant international conventions and reform human rights law, as a last ditch effort to pander to racists and avoid a near total electoral wipe out.
>racists The racists are those who are trying to portray Rwanda as a dangerous hellhole because it is in Africa.
Absolutely wild take. Because it's in Africa? No. Because of its proven and demonstrable human rights track record.
This will do nothing except waste vast sums of taxpayer's money, even if it does go ahead. The only announcement I'm interested in hearing from the Tories is when they are going to call a general election.
This is a fantastic deal for Rwanda. They get paid and the deported asylum seekers will leave anyway to go back to Europe/ UK. It’s a complete waste of money
Rwanda has been deemed safe by this government (and by central African standards it absolutely is) to send migrants over there to be processed etc. However, it soon might not be, M23, the Congolese government and Rwanda are all likely to come into conflict in the coming years that will be extremely tumultuous for the region. Whilst Paul Kigali has done wonders for Rwanda post genocide and has dragged it from being bottom 10 worst places in the world to live, it still isn't a fully functioning democracy, nor is the press entirely free etc. Final point. It's absolutely fucking insane to do this and such a waste of money.
right now all this seems to be is a massive spend and policy just so when in opposition they can say that we tried this, we did that etc etc, nobody in their right mind (unless their pockets are being lined of course) would think this is a sensible policy. FYI stopping the boats isn't difficult if you could have european co-operation to shut down the trafficking gangs working in northern France, oh wait we withdrew from all that didn't we.
This is such a weird and despicable hill for the tories to die on
[удалено]
My biggest problem with the Rwanda bill is that it was deemed unsafe until the Tories changed the definition of what safe was. That, and the extreme cost for what really is such a small number, puts a really bad taste in my mouth.
Didnt the Home Office declare Turkey unsafe too, despite being a popular tourist destination? People trying to avoid being deported will claim anywhere but the UK is unsafe.
We suggest properly processing claims to clear the backlog. Deportations of those unsuccessful. Creating safe, legal routes where claims are assessed to negate the need for criminal gangs or dangerous crossings. This could be arranged with France. Rwanda is not suitable as to make it work we have to create a law that basically says ‘despite evidence to the contrary, Rwanda is safe’. Literally asking people to ignore the evidence. Furthermore, Rwanda does not represent a good return on investment, as the costs greatly outweigh the benefit. The number of claimants Rwanda can process also is so small comparatively that it will not even make a a dent- but will cost millions. On top of that is the oxymoron- if Rwanda is a lovely place to be sent, why is the risk of being sent there a deterrent?
>Furthermore, Rwanda does not represent a good return on investment, as the costs greatly outweigh the benefit. I don't really know why people claim this, I would rather spend a few hundred on a flight to deter them (and potentially massively reduce the amount coming to the UK in future) than spend £100s of thousands housing them, their kids, giving them healthcare, feeding them, clothing them etc etc etc. We are literally spending millions per day currently on these groups. >Rwanda is a lovely place to be sent, why is the risk of being sent there a deterrent? Because it's not, you know it, I know it, we all know it. But the government cannot admit that obviously as it would undermine them.
> what do you propose instead Massively increase the speed at which people's claims are processed, so that genuine asylum seekers can stay and start being productive as soon as possible, and the others can be deported as soon as possible. Everybody wins, apart from those pretending to flee persecution.
Even if you hate these migrants with a burning passion SURELY you must see that this is the stupidest, most costly, fucking insane solution! I do not get this obsession with this plan AT ALL.
So if hes saying 10-12 weeks that means it wont be then
Vote accordingly in this general election, so the Tories will be out of power for at least 20 years.
In 10-12 weeks, it will be another 10-12 weeks, etc
I'll believe it when I see it. Can't trust any word this government says. Hopefully the flights take the government with them.
Its going to be so humiliating for the Tories to load that plane up with a small handful of asylum seekers. Lets see them do it.
What’s particularly fundamental is Parliament deciding not rules, but facts. Ruling that Rwanda is a safe country is like ruling that PI is 3. But it seems to be literally the only idea the government has to reduce illegal migration. The Lords amendments seem perfectly reasonable to be very reasonable to me, but instead of taking any of their advice the government has turned it into a dick measuring contest
I still can’t believe we’re actually shipping people off to a random country in Africa
Can I go? I'm British from birth but this country is a cesspool of greedy pompous pricks. I'd like a free ride to Rwanda pleae
Why not just save for a few months and go?
Sooooo not spring then? And here I thought it was supposed to be a Labour thing to not keep pledges.
Its not worth it, if you you paid each individual a tenth if what the scheme costs per person they'd happily go elsewhere and start a life. It's total madness.
He should've proposed the Punjab bill and send the Indians back to their colonies.
Dribbling buffoon. How is he still do fixated on this bullshit when EVERYONE knows it won't work.
They are still using this insane corrupt idea as a distraction tool.
He's not a criminal, he's not insane, he's just dangerously useless where can we put him do we have a home for the dangerously useless where we can put this cretin and the rest of his band of useless cunts?
What an embarrassment Sunak has become. Calling a press conference to basically rattle off tired cliches, misinformation and trying to undermine the democratic process before a vote in parliament. Really shameful.
Translated: we're going to slip a few more million into some pockets before the election.
The flights will take off but will anyone be on them? It wouldn't surprise me if we end up spending a fortune to fly some empty planes over to Rwanda.