Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: jeremyp on April 14, 2022, 12:17:39 PM
-
Sorry, but words fail me
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61097114
Somebody must have thought this idea up and then decided to propose it as a serious solution. We need to find that person and send them to Rwanda.
-
Indeed.
I sent a birthday wish to a friend this morning and she then asked about the sea prompted by a photo of big waves I'd sent her (that's another story in itself). Anyhow, I told her it was like a mill pond this morning. Adding, Just right for people to come over in dinghies before being booked on a flight to Rwanda. It's surprising, sometimes you find yourself typing a sentence that previously you would not have thought possible.
I understand Ms Patel is going to Rwanda to launch this piece of shit initiative. Perhaps they could keep her.
-
Indeed.
I sent a birthday wish to a friend this morning and she then asked about the sea prompted by a photo of big waves I'd sent her (that's another story in itself). Anyhow, I told her it was like a mill pond this morning. Adding, Just right for people to come over in dinghies before being booked on a flight to Rwanda. It's surprising, sometimes you find yourself typing a sentence that previously you would not have thought possible.
I understand Ms Patel is going to Rwanda to launch this piece of shit initiative. Perhaps they could keep her.
And if they think it's going to stop people from coming, they are sadly mistaken. I watched an episode of Saving Lives at Sea the other day in which the Newhaven lifeboat was called out to a RIB in the middle of the Channel that had been spotted by a passenger ferry and was grossly overloaded with dozens of prospective illegal immigrants including young children. It was heartbreaking but also thought provoking. If they're prepared to put up with two days in the English Channel in an open boat, it must be really bad where they are coming from. The only way to stop people from trying to come here is to make the places where they live better places to live.
-
And, of course, we send them to a country that we have recently criticised for human rights abuses:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rwanda-asylum-deal-home-office-uk-b2058273.html
-
It's obviously bonkers and unworkable, just another of those dog-whistles that have been lying around for years.
-
.....
-
It's obviously bonkers and unworkable, just another of those dog-whistles that have been lying around for years.
If I understand 'dog-whistles' correctly, was it wrong to increase security at Calais, for example?
Can we assume for the sake of argument that the destination is safe and enables people to make a good life.
I remember the violence a lot of immigrants used trying to get on lorries at Calais. I think because they are now risking their lives on the flimsy boats, not being able to get on lorries, people are now more sympathetic to them than they were when they were assaulting lorry drivers.
But they aren't just risking their lives, they are risking the lives of the others on the boats, which are overloaded and therefore more dangerous. I think there needs to be a strong deterrent to this; bearing in mind the word 'strong', what other options are there than deportation?
Given that France will not as far as I know take them back if they make it to English waters, there needs to be an alternative destination. What if Rwanda is the only place that is willing to do this? Is it the long distance that makes people react against the idea?
The migrants have spent thousands on the boat ride and will lose that money. Perhaps they will be given some kind of allowance to start them off? That would make things easier for them.
If the scheme makes some of the migrants think twice, could that help from a safety perspective?
-
This gives some context Spud:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rwanda-asylum-plan-human-rights-b2099573.html
The key takeaway is this para:
Rwanda signed a similar agreement with Israel between 2014 and 2017 that was not a success, with almost all of the 4,000 detainees sent there swiftly leaving the country to undertake the perilous journey to Europe, some of whom are understood to have fallen prey to traffickers en route, notably in Libya.
So in short, doesn't work and makes the plight of those involved worse. Man's inhumanity to man writ large.
-
Interesting, Trent - so the government basically copied Israel.
-
Interesting, Trent - so the government basically copied Israel.
Well, they're heartless bastards, if that's what you mean.
Thankfully, the ECHR has stepped in, a bit belatedly perhaps, and the flight will not now go ahead.
-
Well, they're heartless bastards, if that's what you mean.
Thankfully, the ECHR has stepped in, a bit belatedly perhaps, and the flight will not now go ahead.
Because it may be that the scheme is illegal, which is to be decided in the near future.
Maybe the UK should concentrate on improving its relationship with the EU, like by rejoining... The problem won't be fixed without catching the traffickers, who are on their side of the channel.
-
I'd love to see the background information that supports the assertion that sending people to Rwanda will disrupt the 'business model' of those arranging the cross-channel transport of refugees: as far as I can see that claim is just assertion.
-
Apparently there are strong mumblings in some Tory MPs about getting rid of the bishops from the HoL due to their opposition to this.
-
If I understand 'dog-whistles' correctly, was it wrong to increase security at Calais, for example?
I can't see anything wrong with increasing security - as it made it safer for everyone.
By "dog-whistle" I mean a proposal made to invoke a basic, unconsidered, response to gain support on an issue. The first reaction of most people when it is suggested that their lives are being threatened by newcomers is to demand that the incomers be removed or just go elsewhere - regardless of the actual pros and cons. Many issues re-occur over the long term, and the civil servants have a portfolio of plans previously formulated to deal with them - they offer a choice to politicians newly in power - although most of them have previously been rejected as unworkable. "Ship them elsewhere" was one that came up many times under New Labour although they eventually went for DNA-database/ID cards - then for the "hostile environment" when that flopped.
Can we assume for the sake of argument that the destination is safe and enables people to make a good life.
I remember the violence a lot of immigrants used trying to get on lorries at Calais. I think because they are now risking their lives on the flimsy boats, not being able to get on lorries, people are now more sympathetic to them than they were when they were assaulting lorry drivers.
But they aren't just risking their lives, they are risking the lives of the others on the boats, which are overloaded and therefore more dangerous. I think there needs to be a strong deterrent to this; bearing in mind the word 'strong', what other options are there than deportation?
The boats are certainly dangerous, but people may choose the danger if no safer routes are available. The answer is to provide reasonable routes for asylum seekers to make their cases. Ukrainian refugees are not resorting to inflatables - despite the absolute shambles of a system that has been set up for them to get here.
Given that France will not as far as I know take them back if they make it to English waters, there needs to be an alternative destination. What if Rwanda is the only place that is willing to do this? Is it the long distance that makes people react against the idea?
Why should France take them back? They don't want to be in France: why does there need to be an alternative destination? France has sensibly offered setting up a processing centre in Calais - but the UK won't take that up.
The migrants have spent thousands on the boat ride and will lose that money. Perhaps they will be given some kind of allowance to start them off? That would make things easier for them.
If the scheme makes some of the migrants think twice, could that help from a safety perspective?
Again, this unworkable - for those willing to risk their lives to join families in the UK they will use whatever resources they have to leave Rwanda and try again - possibly involving even more dangerous crossings.
-
Interesting, Trent - so the government basically copied Israel.
The Israeli scheme didn't work as the refugees just left.
You could also compare against the Polish/German Madagascar Plan to ship off the Jewish population prior to the war and "Final solution":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan
-
Thanks Udayana,
I know a Nigerian lady who has two sisters and a brother in the UK and has done two degree courses here. She tried to get an innovator visa to stay on, but her idea was rejected. She then resorted to overstaying, and trying to find someone to marry her and get her a spouse visa (I was the third guy she tried). I was advised to inform the home office that I was dating her, in order to cover myself. Not wanting to do this I waited for a while but her situation was quite dire: she could not work nor rent without a visa. So I decided to tell the home office. They were very unthreatening but firm that she should return and reapply from her home.
I probably should have been quicker to realise what was happening, but you know how it is when you want a relationship to work out.
Anyway, she went back and is now living with her mother, we're still in touch as friends. There isn't much hope of her getting a visa. I felt a bit used, so I didn't feel she was the one, in the end.
The system seems very cruel though, she has to see her siblings successfully settled here but live in poverty in Lagos.
I guess my point is that she had a safe home she could return to, and so did not qualify for asylum.
It seems very unfair. But if it was relaxed I suspect half the world would want to live here. So I'm not sure if the concept of reasonable routes for asylum seekers to make their case is realistic?
-
...
I guess my point is that she had a safe home she could return to, and so did not qualify for asylum.
It seems very unfair. But if it was relaxed I suspect half the world would want to live here. So I'm not sure if the concept of reasonable routes for asylum seekers to make their case is realistic?
Of-course asylum is considered separately and differently to normal (ie. economic) migration. But I don't think either system in place in the UK is fit for purpose.
IMO, ideally, everyone could live wherever they liked - people just wouldn't emigrate to countries where they was not suitable employment or other sustainable resources available, except for other pressing reasons - why should they? But there are many factors preventing this: Economic inequality, corruption, climate change, politics and just straightforward repression and exploitation - which leads to many people wanting to migrate to states that seem better off (at least for now).
-
which leads to many people wanting to migrate to states that seem better off (at least for now).
Quite.
As ever the human race (at least in the West) is burying its head in the sand, or possibly up its own arse, by ignoring the future migrant crisis that will be triggered by the increasing pace of the climate crisis, which will make our current difficulties on this matter seem like a walk in the park.
-
Quite.
As ever the human race (at least in the West) is burying its head in the sand, or possibly up its own arse, by ignoring the future migrant crisis that will be triggered by the increasing pace of the climate crisis, which will make our current difficulties on this matter seem like a walk in the park.
It's not just the West. I watched a documentary on Baghdad, where the temperature today for example is 47 Celcius. As well as being a result of global climate change, this is a local problem caused by expansion of the city into the surrounding farmland, plus increased numbers of cars. The fumes released by the cars has caused the temperature of the region including the farms outside the city to increase so much that it's increasingly harder to grow crops. I think they were saying that this is all affecting local rainfall too, so that the river Tigris, already lower because of dams built North of Iraq, doesn't have enough water for irrigation of the crops.
-
REFUGEES - Brian Bilston
They have no need of our help
So do not tell me
These haggard faces could belong to you or me
Should life have dealt a different hand
We need to see them for who they really are
Chancers and scroungers
Layabouts and loungers
With bombs up their sleeves
Cut-throats and thieves
They are not
Welcome here
We should make them
Go back to where they came from
They cannot
Share our food
Share our homes
Share our countries
Instead let us
Build a wall to keep them out
It is not okay to say
These are people just like us
A place should only belong to those who are born there
Do not be so stupid to think that
The world can be looked at another way
(now read from bottom to top)
-
A little update on the Rwanda policy that both potential leaders are keen on keeping:
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/rwanda-can-accommodate-just-200-channel-migrants-government-officials-say-330371/?
Why the heck aren't we spending that £600,000 per head in our own country?
This is economic incontinence.
-
It is sickening to think of any asylum seekers being sent to Rwanda. >:( It is Johnson and his acolytes who should imprisoned there, never to return to the UK.
-
And it's a no from the Supreme Court
-
You beat me to it. Details from the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/15/supreme-court-rejects-rishi-sunak-plan-to-deport-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda
-
You beat me to it. Details from the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/15/supreme-court-rejects-rishi-sunak-plan-to-deport-asylum-seekers-to-rwanda
It was always a shite plan. And in one day, Braverman's letter has been proved right in that he doesn't have a Plan B, shite or otherwise.
It was never going to solve the issue. It wasn't ever of sufficient size to really effect it even without the legal problems. It would hardly have filled half the back of a fag packet.
As a distraction, it constantly hasn't, and now makes them look weak, divided, and stupid.
-
It was always a shite plan. And in one day, Braverman's letter has been proved right in that he doesn't have a Plan B, shite or otherwise.
If only the responsible minister had a plan B.
The responsible minister is the Home Secretary, who was....
.... Suella!
-
Just image what it must be like, to be a human being, thinking 'those Tories want to take away my rights'.
-
OFfS
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/nov/15/rwanda-deportation-policy-supreme-court-rishi-sunak-leadership-conservatives-uk-politics-latest?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-6554fc3a8f0894c5322399c3#block-6554fc3a8f0894c5322399c3 (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/nov/15/rwanda-deportation-policy-supreme-court-rishi-sunak-leadership-conservatives-uk-politics-latest?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-6554fc3a8f0894c5322399c3#block-6554fc3a8f0894c5322399c3)Sunak says he will pass emergency law saying Rwanda is safe country
Then he'll pass law that the UK owns the moon and climate change is banned.
Brain Dead idiot.
-
'When your Majesty says, "Let a thing be done," it's as good as done — practically, it is done — because your Majesty's will is law. Your Majesty says, "A certain country is safe," and the courts will accept that it is safe. Consequently, that country is as good as safe — practically, it is safe — and if it is safe, why not say so?'
With apologies to WS Gilbert, and my hat tipped to a friend.
-
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
Fucking mad the lot of 'em.
-
OFfS
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/nov/15/rwanda-deportation-policy-supreme-court-rishi-sunak-leadership-conservatives-uk-politics-latest?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-6554fc3a8f0894c5322399c3#block-6554fc3a8f0894c5322399c3 (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/nov/15/rwanda-deportation-policy-supreme-court-rishi-sunak-leadership-conservatives-uk-politics-latest?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-6554fc3a8f0894c5322399c3#block-6554fc3a8f0894c5322399c3)Then he'll pass law that the UK owns the moon and climate change is banned.
Brain Dead idiot.
Oh FFS indeed. When are these morons going to realise the policy is dead?
Anyway, judging by the court decision, announcing that Rwanda is safe (and I am not qualified to say it is not safe), won't help. The court decision was that you can't send asylum seekers in danger of life or liberty back either directly or indirectly. They can't be sent to Rwanda because Rwanda might send them home.
-
Oh FFS indeed. When are these morons going to realise the policy is dead?
Anyway, judging by the curt decision, announcing that Rwanda is safe (and I am not qualified to say it is not safe), won't help. The court decision was that you can't send asylum seekers in danger of life or liberty back either directly or indirectly. They can't be sent to Rwanda because Rwanda might send them home.
Maybe they'll pass a law saying that anyone who escaped from Rwanda is actually being sent back to Nwanda.
Even trying to mock this though, i'm struggling to think that a country where in fairly recent memory, an almost unimaginably brutal wave of tribal violence, rape, and genocide took place is 'safe'.
Also, they keep wittering on that they need to do this to 'stop the boats'. It's got fuck all to do with the boats. This is a post boats policy. Implement this to Rwanda, Nwanda, or Bravermania, and there will still be boats.
-
Batshit.
If it is good enough (allegedly) for Cleverley, it's good enough for me.
-
Batshit.
If it is good enough (allegedly) for Cleverley, it's good enough for me.
Even Patel is making coherent statements on this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67436841
-
Selective amnesia - a common complaint amongst politicians who said something embarrassing in the past.
-
Oh FFS indeed. When are these morons going to realise the policy is dead?
Anyway, judging by the curt decision, announcing that Rwanda is safe (and I am not qualified to say it is not safe), won't help. The court decision was that you can't send asylum seekers in danger of life or liberty back either directly or indirectly. They can't be sent to Rwanda because Rwanda might send them home.
The courts are even more curt now than they were yesterday. Lord Sumption, a former supreme court judge, has dismissed the notion that legislation like this would make any difference. He told the News at 10 last night:
"I have never heard of them trying to change the facts, by law. ... it is profoundly discreditable."
Facts of law are vv. important. if used in a tribunal, they can be accepted by an further (/higher) appeal.
For the supreme Court to have already accepted the fact of law that Rwanda is not safe. Leaves it as a permanent fact.
Pretending it could be used in legislation remains absolutely "bat shit".
-
If only the responsible minister had a plan B.
The responsible minister is the Home Secretary, who was....
.... Suella!
I suspect Braverman's position would be she had a Plan B which was the night before the judgement send Big Nobby round to the judges' houses to explain in detail the concept of safety with demonstrations with pliers, soldering iron, wire wool toilet brush, and Michael McIntyre DVDs, but was told no.
-
The courts are even more curt now than they were yesterday.
I've fixed the spelling mistake, in case anybody is wondering what SV is on about.
Facts of law are vv. important. if used in a tribunal, they can be accepted by a further (/higher) appeal.
For the supreme Court to have already accepted the fact of law that Rwanda is not safe. Leaves it as a permanent fact.
Pretending it could be used in legislation remains absolutely "bat shit".
I agree.
It's important to understand that the court is accepting that Rwanda itself is relatively safe (notwithstanding NS's comment above). What killed the deportations is that there is no guarantee that Rwanda wouldn't ship the refugees to other places that aren't safe. No law that Rishi Sunk can enact will change that.
-
I've fixed the spelling mistake, in case anybody is wondering what SV is on about.
I agree.
Don't worry, NS and I have both included your spelling mistake in your quotes, so it'll probably stay there forever .. ;)
-
This should be quite entertaining over the coming weeks/months.
On one hand you've got Sunak trying the pacify the lunatic fringe of his own party by legislating, 'notwithstanding' that some of them are swivel-eyed fact-denying xenophobes and that facts don't change due to legislation, and on the other hand there are those who will try to undermine any attempts to play fast and loose with the legal system, including non-domestic laws - and there is little more that a year before a GE must happen.
I suspect we're in 'all sound and fury' territory: get your popcorn in now!
-
If it wasn't for those pesky politicians, eh, Suella?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67446101
-
New immigration records but it's all about boats and Rwanda.
https://www.cityam.com/net-migration-hits-672000-as-rishi-sunak-set-for-showdown-on-rwanda-policy/
-
Another Tory Minister declares UDIbon immigration. To be fair to Jenrick these proposals would have an effect unlike the boats and Rwanda posturing. Essentially though it's just reversing govt policy, there to deal with issues in the UK workforce, and appears to have no proposals to deal with those issues.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67515674
-
The not taking back control point is a good one. The immigration figures are as a direct result of this govts policies. And good to see the SNP taking their position on more immigration being needed for Scotland.
The Labour Party's position here is as so many of their pisitions stuck on a fence trying to say as little as possible.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67516117
-
The not taking back control point is a good one. The immigration figures are as a direct result of this govts policies. And good to see the SNP taking their position on more immigration being needed for Scotland.
The Labour Party's position here is as so many of their pisitions stuck on a fence trying to say as little as possible.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67516117
I side with the SNP on this one.
-
One of the things that annoys me is when Tory politicians come out with versions of 'the British people want us to reduce immigration', and I'm not sure that is true and it isn't what the SNP are saying, as has been pointed out.
I suspect that the use of 'British people' here is code for 'xenophobic Tory voters'.
-
I suspect that the use of 'British people' here is code for 'xenophobic Tory voters'.
Actually, they would be more concerned with xenophobic voters who might vote Labour.
-
Knee jerk policy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67612106
-
'Robert Jenrick insists UK workers will fill labour gaps after migration crackdown'
Given that part of the reason for the figures that he wants to cut were because this didn't happen, then this looks like magical thinking at best, or more likely out and out lying.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67622998
-
Can you afford your spouse? The price of love.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67630258
-
I could just read this and shake my head and groan 'Swindon' but despite my lack of love for the place, it's not atypical. I also hear echoes from across the years and the Atlantic from Harlan Ellison's 1969 essay The Common Man based around a TV show that was a vox pop of 5 middle class Americans. It's in his collection The Glass Teat but I can't find a free to read link.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67630766
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67627696
We have now sent more home secretaries to Rwanda than asylum seekers.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67627696
We have now sent more home secretaries to Rwanda than asylum seekers.
Don't stop now: May, Javid, Rudd, Patel....
O.
-
Braverman fights for the arsesoul of the Tory Party.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67639843
-
Jenrick resigns.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67640833
-
Was just about to post this myself.
Clearly, he and Braverman had this planned today.
-
Was just about to post this myself.
Clearly, he and Braverman had this planned today.
Worth remembering this
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/robert-jenrick-richard-desmond-planning-application-scandal-corruption-458029
-
I don't know whether this is descending into madness or farce. A former Tory solicitor general is reported, on the BBC, as saying;
"Parliament is being required to pass a law that says a cat is a dog even when there’s no evidence to suggest that’s true and you cannot challenge it."
-
Apparently the mood is bleak in the Tory party after Jenrick's resignation:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67644952
Because feeling sorry for themselves rather than for what they've done to people is the as much as this collection of thieves, liars, con artists, pimps, autofellating abusers can manage. My shite has more morals, my pish more intellect.
And the thing is I know there are decent members of the party, even decent elected officials, amazingly even decent MPs but I can't understand why it's not at the stage when they just don't want to be associated with this. It's not that it's actually evil, it's just amoral but also incompetent.
The slow rotting scandals of Grenfell, and Windrush, were added to yesterday by the so slow, so insufficient reaction to the Hillsborough report that Theresa May called them out on it. The oleaginous simperings going on at the Covid inquiry where the incompetence is being used as a figleaf for the corruption and attacks on the rule of law.
There is a time to fight for your party but, surely at some point, you have to recognise that it is no longer noble to stand beside and therefore support this ratfuck?
-
So No. 10 has just tweeted this:
"We are a reasonable country, but our patience has now run out.
Our Parliament is sovereign, and it should be able to make decisions that cannot be undone in our courts.
That’s what this emergency legislation delivers."
Think about that. Long and hard.
-
So No. 10 has just tweeted this:
"We are a reasonable country, but our patience has now run out.
Our Parliament is sovereign, and it should be able to make decisions that cannot be undone in our courts.
That’s what this emergency legislation delivers."
Think about that. Long and hard.
https://youtu.be/VxWwm3agF5o?si=w4a6vRER9Rc9JkXd
-
Immigration https://liveapp.inews.co.uk/2023/12/07/rishi-sunaks-new-migration-laws-may-cause-inflation-to-rise-say-economists/content.html
Economists and businesses have warned that plans to slash the number of legal migrants arriving into the UK could push up inflation and curb economic growth
Sunak wants to cut inflation, increase growth /and/ cut migration.
Decisions, decisions,... decisions, well at least /some/ of them must be hard to make.
-
Ok, I'll go, just give me the money
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67656220
-
Ok, I'll go, just give me the money
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67656220 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67656220)
The cost of popcorn has shot up. I wonder how much that will affect inflation?
-
When you say stop the boats, what you mean is pay 700m to plan for not stopping the boats....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67677933
-
Interesting fact, in the agreement with Rwanda if any of the people we deport there commit a crime which carries a sentence longer than 5 years then Rwanda has the right to return that person to the UK.
Quite an incentive to commit a crime.
-
You have to wonder why they are pursuing this Rwanda policy at all - it seems to be full of risks that at the very least will turn it into a soap opera, where even if they get a couple of planes in the air before the next election it will still appear futile given the money they have spent.
There is also 'the British people want/expect us to do this' mantra - but is that really the case, or is it more the case that they have concluded that some Tory voters, or potential Tory voters, support this policy?
With any luck, one way or another, this policy will bring down this noxious apology for a government.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/dec/11/rishi-sunak-covid-inquiry-conservatives-rwanda-asylum-bill-uk-politics-live?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-657719d58f08daf1a2a75e0f#block-657719d58f08daf1a2a75e0f (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2023/dec/11/rishi-sunak-covid-inquiry-conservatives-rwanda-asylum-bill-uk-politics-live?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-657719d58f08daf1a2a75e0f#block-657719d58f08daf1a2a75e0f)
Government publishes its legal assessment of Rwanda bill
there is a clear lawful basis on which a responsible government may proceed.
If you want to know which Government is responsible, just flip a coin.
-
The only question... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/11/gary-lineker-and-brian-cox-back-call-to-scrap-rwanda-scheme (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/11/gary-lineker-and-brian-cox-back-call-to-scrap-rwanda-scheme) ... is where do I sign?
-
The only question... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/11/gary-lineker-and-brian-cox-back-call-to-scrap-rwanda-scheme (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/11/gary-lineker-and-brian-cox-back-call-to-scrap-rwanda-scheme) ... is where do I sign?
The left on the Tory party have decided to support the bill, I suspect because they hope it will fail in the courts.
-
Meanwhile in France
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67683314
-
The left on the Tory party have decided to support the bill, I suspect because they hope it will fail in the courts.
Or because a failed bill will destroy the Tory party much sooner than the scheduled date of 28th January 2025.
-
Or because a failed bill will destroy the Tory party much sooner than the scheduled date of 28th January 2025.
False dichotomy. I think that's definitely the msin part pf their motivation but they assuaged their consciences with the thought that dpung something they that was immoral wasn't quite as bad as it wouldn't happen.
-
Asylum seeker dies on the barge. Probaly a fairly likely thing to happen at some point but it's all symbolism now.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67692099
-
False dichotomy.
What? I didn't propose a dichotomy.
I think that's definitely the msin part pf their motivation but they assuaged their consciences with the thought that dpung something they that was immoral wasn't quite as bad as it wouldn't happen.
I agree with that. They justify voting for a despicable law on the grounds that it failing would be complete disaster and it will hopefully be struck down by the courts anyway.
-
More guddle than govt
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67794032
-
'Labour considers processing asylum seekers overseas' to be honest I thought this was already under consideration just not for being decided if possible in order to remain on ths fence.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67822631
-
Did Sunak have doubts? Well if he did it would st least show he has some functioning intelligence, but then no integrity. To be fair, I didn't think he was stupid.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67899189
-
The fag end of the parliament now just hosting the warring sections of the Tory Party fighting for custody of its pox ridden soul after they lose the election.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67930783
-
Well, the best advice I can come up with is have a good night's sleep and then dance on the Tories carnage. You'll need a lot of energy to do that.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/jan/16/rwanda-bill-rishi-sunak-latest-politics-news-updates-live?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-65a6c3ca8f081086499888a5#block-65a6c3ca8f081086499888a5 (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/jan/16/rwanda-bill-rishi-sunak-latest-politics-news-updates-live?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-65a6c3ca8f081086499888a5#block-65a6c3ca8f081086499888a5)
Lee Anderson and Brendan Clarke-Smith resign as Tory deputy chairs over Rwanda bill
-
Maybe it's just me - but when I read comments from several Tories to the effect that 'stopping the small boats' is the primary issue that vexes the electorate: I just wonder who on earth they are talking to. I'd have thought that the cost of living a bigger issue.
-
The Tory party fighting over which is the empty thoughtless pose likely to lose the fewest of them seats, and after the deluge put which self interested little grouping in the best place.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68001727
-
Risk! reprimanded. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/jan/18/rishi-sunak-press-conference-rwanda-bill-conservatives-labour-fujitsu-post-office-horizon-uk-politics-latest?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-65a910c98f08b7e48791ed5b#block-65a910c98f08b7e48791ed5b (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/jan/18/rishi-sunak-press-conference-rwanda-bill-conservatives-labour-fujitsu-post-office-horizon-uk-politics-latest?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-65a910c98f08b7e48791ed5b#block-65a910c98f08b7e48791ed5b)
Sunak reprimanded by UK's statistics watchdog over misleading claim about asylum claims backlog being cleared
But, there are very few asylum seekers who have applied in 2024 and loads more applied in 2023...Why does this lying idiot want more maths teachers?
-
Thérèse Coffey
https://youtu.be/ef9RRiXQ-6I?si=FZQa5lWAl8DYjx2W
-
So the UK granted asylum to people living in Rwanda whilst arguing it was safe to send people there.
As a plot point for "The Tourist" this might just have worked, but in real life, never.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/27/revealed-uk-granted-asylum-to-rwandan-refugees-while-arguing-country-was-safe
-
So the UK granted asylum to people living in Rwanda whilst arguing it was safe to send people there.
As a plot point for "The Tourist" this might just have worked, but in real life, never.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/27/revealed-uk-granted-asylum-to-rwandan-refugees-while-arguing-country-was-safe
There are those who would see it not being safe as a plus point in the plan
-
The attachment to the Rwanda plan is about face saving not logic, not achieving a goal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68270451
-
The attachment to the Rwanda plan is about face saving not logic, not achieving a goal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68270451
It's about achieving the goal of Tory re-election - or at least the avoidance of complete obliteration.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/mar/04/jeremy-hunt-budget-rishi-sunak-conservatives-labour-keir-starmer-george-galloway-national-insurance-cut-uk-politics-live?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-65e60ae68f08ed4171df5284#block-65e60ae68f08ed4171df5284
Sunak suffers second defeat as peers say bill cannot treat Rwanda as safe until treaty provisions implemented
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/22/rwanda-trips-uk-ministers-officials-cost-over-400000
Fuck me. Have they not heard of Ryanair?
-
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/22/rwanda-trips-uk-ministers-officials-cost-over-400000
Fuck me. Have they not heard of Ryanair?
Ryanair doesn't seem to operate flights to Rwanda or even anywhere in Africa.
-
Ryanair doesn't seem to operate flights to Rwanda or even anywhere in Africa.
Oh dear. Yes, I know. It was just the principle of cheaper flights being available.
You probably could have chartered one of their jets cheaper than the amount the UK Gov forked out.
-
Oh dear. Yes, I know. It was just the principle of cheaper flights being available.
You probably could have chartered one of their jets cheaper than the amount the UK Gov forked out.
But that's not just the flights. It's flights, accommodation and other expenses (security etc) for James Notsocleverly and whatever entourage a government minister needs.
Don't get me wrong - the whole fiasco is a ridiculous waste of money and a gross injustice - but not using cheap flights is a drop in the ocean.
-
Sunak courting those who have no real understanding of what the ECHR is, and Britain's role in its creation.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/sunak-european-convention-of-human-rights-court_uk_660d9569e4b083254eaaaa45
-
And then some of the press deliberately conflated the ECHR with the EU and added extra pressure onto Sunak by turning it into a vow, which it wasn't if you read what he said (although I'm sure he's quite happy to have it taken that way):
-
And then some of the press deliberately conflated the ECHR with the EU and added extra pressure onto Sunak by turning it into a vow, which it wasn't if you read what he said (although I'm sure he's quite happy to have it taken that way):
The whole 'foreign court' stuff though that Sunak uses is part of that deliberate conflation.
-
Suspect that he is just flag-waving for the benefit of the lunatic fringe in his own party - he knows fine well that the ECHR is an element in the Good Friday agreement, and even if he was naive enough to think he could bulldoze anything involving NI, he also knows that he doesn't have the time left to tackle anything that complex.
-
Poor little minister feels patronised. Does he want to have blankie?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68871847
-
Effect on Republic of Ireland
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68914399
-
Border Security Command - that sounds well hard. Will they get Liam Neeson to be in charge?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68984778
-
'No credible plan to make Rwanda move work, say MPs' but surely it's only the Labour Party who has no plans!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxww0j0pdv7o
-
The refugees already sent to Rwanda
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c511kkwej7jo
-
And done
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9dn8erg3zo
-
I am so glad asylum seekers will no longer be threatened with being sent to Rwanda.
-
And done
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz9dn8erg3zo
This government is already better than the last.
-
Only the £700m then
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1rw47l2xxgo
-
Only the £700m then
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1rw47l2xxgo
Jaw-dropping - I think that's about twice the amount that was being suggested prior to the election.
This feels almost like criminal waste of tax payers money given that for £700m not a single asylum seeker was forcible relocated to Rwanda.
-
not a single asylum seeker was forcible relocated to Rwanda.
The joker is that the scheme paid for more government ministers' visits than asylum seekers' relocations.