Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Opinion polling shows that immigration has lost most of the salience it had in the early to mid 2010s.
Sadly it also shows that its salience correlates almost perfectly with the amount of press coverage of it as an issue. Far more than with the actual net migration numbers.
This stuff is just stupid. But, sadly, effective. Good politics relies on politicians resisting the urge to indulge their voters’ basest human instincts.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
ID cards for all, and incentives (including a route to citizenship) for those who shop employers of illegal immigrants and people smugglers.
Illegal immigrants are already excluded from the benefits system, with no route to employment the incentives for people to try to enter illegally would be very much reduced.
There is merit in that and I am happy to have an ID card but not sure it is politically possible at present
It seems a little illogical to me to change the entire British way of life in order to hamper the course of illegal migration. It is surely simpler to (politely and kindly) prevent illegal migration in the first place.
As I have said before, and I believe others here have agreed the idea has merit, all British asylum claims should be processed overseas. The successful applicants would be brought to Britain and assisted in their new lives. Those who arrived in the UK to claim assylum would be taken to the nearest overseas claim centre. Those who arrived hoping to evade any authority at all would be swiftly deported. Thus no more dangerous boats, no more trafficking.
How does ID cards "change the entire British way of life"? I mean genuine question. Do you have a driver's licence?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Boris has any intention of withdrawing from the ECHR.
However he has every intention of stoking up division, hatred and witch-hunts by pretending he might do so.
Sunder Kutwala this morning highlighted that “You should be sent to Rwanda” is now being used as a term of abuse on David Lammy, Sadiq Khan, and even Priti Patel.
Meanwhile one of my friends - who happens to be a “lefty lawyer” involved in the asylum seeker defences - was today emailed that she was a “menacing whore waiting to be raped”.
I don’t really have much time for the idea that this is all fair dos because Boris gets to “own the libs”.
Asylum seekers.
Just one more group thrown under the bus to enable Big Dog to get through another week.
And the bonus is that lawyers go under the wheels as well. And we all know who is lawyer.
When will tory mps end this nightmare?
Burke and Thatcher must be turning in their graves.
Right because Thatcher would never have fucked over vulnerable people for political advantage
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
And I would genuinely reply (again) that @rcs1000, @Cyclefree, and @Foxy are proposing various solutions that do not involve operating a PR stunt on the backs of a few benighted asylum seekers.
Their so-called “solutions” are comical
I mean, it's like asking a flint-knapper about Artificial Intelligence immigration policy.
So @Leon thinks my so-called solutions are 'comical', does he?
Would this be the same Leon who earlier today wrote this when I summarised my suggested solutions:
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
Because...?
Don't think this immigration issue is doing Labour any good - voters will think they have an open door policy - Tories are 20/1 so a good value bet.
So. Fill your boots. If you think Wakefield is abuzz with Rwanda talk.
Unfortunately this stuff works. We have a living case study to our East: an entire civilisation conditioned by government and media to believe erasing the Ukrainian nation and identity is a virtuous national objective.
That Hitchin focus group in Starmer today: one person said “I heard he let off Jimmy Saville”. It works. Not always perfectly, particularly when the economy is fucked up, but it does work.
Well yeah. But rather like the discussion on determinism I choose not to be downhearted. Becuse the alternative is too depressing. That may be naive. But it's important for my mental health.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
ID cards for all, and incentives (including a route to citizenship) for those who shop employers of illegal immigrants and people smugglers.
Illegal immigrants are already excluded from the benefits system, with no route to employment the incentives for people to try to enter illegally would be very much reduced.
There is merit in that and I am happy to have an ID card but not sure it is politically possible at present
It seems a little illogical to me to change the entire British way of life in order to hamper the course of illegal migration. It is surely simpler to (politely and kindly) prevent illegal migration in the first place.
As I have said before, and I believe others here have agreed the idea has merit, all British asylum claims should be processed overseas. The successful applicants would be brought to Britain and assisted in their new lives. Those who arrived in the UK to claim assylum would be taken to the nearest overseas claim centre. Those who arrived hoping to evade any authority at all would be swiftly deported. Thus no more dangerous boats, no more trafficking.
How does ID cards "change the entire British way of life"? I mean genuine question. Do you have a driver's licence?
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
But even though Labour says it doesn’t have one they still say it. So what is Labour supposed to do?
🔺 Update: Boris Johnson has opened the door to leaving the European Convention on Human Rights to make it easier to remove illegal migrants from the UK
I find it difficult to describe the PM as anything other than wicked, and the UK as fucked.
Which western countries do you think are going in the right direction?
Few to none.
The liberal order which I took for granted growing up is under concerted attack.
Because its leaders failed to remember they are the servants not the masters
This doesn’t really mean much. Perhaps you’d care to expand.
The pursuit of globalisation and ignoring those left behind in the UK. A willingness to condemn people to a life of benefits. All sorts of things.
I think what you are saying is too broad to have much explanatory power. You could have levied such a criticism at any government, at any time, anywhere.
It’s a summary, of course.
But basically from the Clintons onwards. The belief that GDP growth is enough even if GDP/capita goes backwards.
Macro statistics are distorted by the very large actors and don’t necessarily reflect the lives experience of the voters
Inequality really ramped up under Thatcher/Reagan, and while globalisation had to wait for the end of the Cold War, the present day “long stagnation” seems to date from the period just before the GFC.
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
If you know it isn’t true why were you levelling the accusation earlier?
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
But even though Labour says it doesn’t have one they still say it. So what is Labour supposed to do?
I personally think they should call it out as it is: a transparent attempt to stoke division, to deflect attention from the cost of living crisis.
Perhaps folk in Wakefield should be reminded that the Tories are shipping hundreds of thousands of black and brown faces in to replace the white European Christians after Brexit !
Of course my comment is very close to the bone and politically incorrect !
Personally I don’t give a fig where people come from as long as they’re law abiding citizens but would leave have won if they stuck that on the side of a bus !
As for the latest attempt to dupe the plebs into cheering on the UK leaving the ECHR unfortunately nuance isn’t something low information voters think of .
Rights are there to protect everyone even those we don’t think much of !
Of course the right wing hate press will ignore the fact that one of the UKs heroes for many, Churchill was instrumental in the formation of the ECHR .
It would send a terrible message to the world if the UK pulled out but there are no red lines when it comes to Johnson trying to save his own skin . Divide and rule is all this government knows .
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Opinion polling shows that immigration has lost most of the salience it had in the early to mid 2010s.
Sadly it also shows that its salience correlates almost perfectly with the amount of press coverage of it as an issue. Far more than with the actual net migration numbers.
This stuff is just stupid. But, sadly, effective. Good politics relies on politicians resisting the urge to indulge their voters’ basest human instincts.
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
No, that's a caricature. Give me one quote from a Labour politician, even on the left, that suggests we should let everyone in.
The point about France is simply that we shouldn't hide behind the fact that we're harder to get at than France is - developed countries should try to take a share that they feel they can manage - I reckon most people would be up for 0.1-0.2% of the population per year, i.e. 100 or so people in an average constituency (=65,000 nationally).
It should however be counted as a point in FAVOUR of the application if it's done at a distance where the applicant is currently living (whether a dangerous place or a refugee camp). Make people feel that the best shot at applying is doing it where they live, rather than risking their life to have a less good chance. At present, it's the other way round - you have a far better chance of asylum if you arrive in a leaky boat, so we have a sort of Hunger Games approach - yes, we'll consider you but only if you risk your life.
I have said before Nick, even the activist groups won't come out in public and say that - they are too smart to know that it would undermine their plans. It's hidden behind emotive language but the goal is the same: let everyone in who wants to come in on the slimmest of pretexts. Let's flip the question - how many migrant charity groups have come out and said they support ANY deportation, even when it's obvious there is not a case? I can't think of one and I bet you can't either.
As for the 0.1% - 0.2%, ok. Does that include their families? Because you know as well as I do that 'immediate' family members would be let in, so how many extra relatives for each person is that? I reckon 4-6 per applicant would come in claiming to be close relatives, so we are now talking 400-600 people in each constituency. And we all know they are not going into Primrose Hill or Dartmouth Park.
The fact that you don't even see it as a problem shows that many on the left just don't see it as an issue.
I've not said I don't think it's a problem - I see it partly as a reflection of the grotesque inequalities of global wealth and opportunity. If I was Syrian, say, especially one with dissident views, I would certainly try to come to a Western country, wouldn't you? So part of my solution is not to cut the aid budget, and not to use it as a means of projecting soft power, but to invest in making the countries of origin better places to live. As others have said, not arming their civil wars would be a useful start.
We can debate numbers - my figures would include families, and I'd be reasonably restrictive on what counted as family. Essentially the point is that it's an artificial divide to say that the right want to deport everyone and the left want to deport nobody - that leads to a pseudo-debate where we all fight straw men. Asking what number of refugees from terror we'd accept each year gives a more rational debate - in the real world, almost nobody says "none" or "everyone", so why pretend that they do?
It's important to stress that the ECHR doesn't give unlimited protection against deportation. Here's an example where a migrant was behaving so badly that he was deported even though he had lived in the country (Austria) for 14 years:
I would agree with you on the grotesque distortions in global wealth. Part may be to do with us but a lot is to do with those countries’ regimes. So what should we do on that front? Re-colonise the world? Seriously, many countries are in a poor state because they have poor governments and often that is not down to the West. It gets forgotten but many countries in Africa have been independent longer than they were colonies. How long do you want to go on blaming the West?
I’d also agree with you about the artificial divide. I want a fair and just asylum policy that protects those who are being persecuted. But I go back to the question I asked you before - how many asylum groups have ever claimed that some people should be deported and ever agreed that a deportation is just? Seriously, I cannot think of one example.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
ID cards for all, and incentives (including a route to citizenship) for those who shop employers of illegal immigrants and people smugglers.
Illegal immigrants are already excluded from the benefits system, with no route to employment the incentives for people to try to enter illegally would be very much reduced.
There is merit in that and I am happy to have an ID card but not sure it is politically possible at present
It seems a little illogical to me to change the entire British way of life in order to hamper the course of illegal migration. It is surely simpler to (politely and kindly) prevent illegal migration in the first place.
As I have said before, and I believe others here have agreed the idea has merit, all British asylum claims should be processed overseas. The successful applicants would be brought to Britain and assisted in their new lives. Those who arrived in the UK to claim assylum would be taken to the nearest overseas claim centre. Those who arrived hoping to evade any authority at all would be swiftly deported. Thus no more dangerous boats, no more trafficking.
How does ID cards "change the entire British way of life"? I mean genuine question. Do you have a driver's licence?
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
But even though Labour says it doesn’t have one they still say it. So what is Labour supposed to do?
Emphasise:
1. The failure of the policy because it’s Ill thought out and fundamentally unserious 2. The waste of public resources on a gimmic when it could have been spent on the needs of hard pressed British voters
You are one of a few then on the left @Foxy (I'm assuming you are telling the truth). @Casino_Royale is right - what many on the left want is effectively open immigration and everyone let in, that is their asylum policy. No questioning of why France is not a safe country, no questions asked about what the applicants ask - if someone turns up and says "yes, I fear for my life" you are in.
No, that's a caricature. Give me one quote from a Labour politician, even on the left, that suggests we should let everyone in.
The point about France is simply that we shouldn't hide behind the fact that we're harder to get at than France is - developed countries should try to take a share that they feel they can manage - I reckon most people would be up for 0.1-0.2% of the population per year, i.e. 100 or so people in an average constituency (=65,000 nationally).
It should however be counted as a point in FAVOUR of the application if it's done at a distance where the applicant is currently living (whether a dangerous place or a refugee camp). Make people feel that the best shot at applying is doing it where they live, rather than risking their life to have a less good chance. At present, it's the other way round - you have a far better chance of asylum if you arrive in a leaky boat, so we have a sort of Hunger Games approach - yes, we'll consider you but only if you risk your life.
I have said before Nick, even the activist groups won't come out in public and say that - they are too smart to know that it would undermine their plans. It's hidden behind emotive language but the goal is the same: let everyone in who wants to come in on the slimmest of pretexts. Let's flip the question - how many migrant charity groups have come out and said they support ANY deportation, even when it's obvious there is not a case? I can't think of one and I bet you can't either.
As for the 0.1% - 0.2%, ok. Does that include their families? Because you know as well as I do that 'immediate' family members would be let in, so how many extra relatives for each person is that? I reckon 4-6 per applicant would come in claiming to be close relatives, so we are now talking 400-600 people in each constituency. And we all know they are not going into Primrose Hill or Dartmouth Park.
The fact that you don't even see it as a problem shows that many on the left just don't see it as an issue.
I've not said I don't think it's a problem - I see it partly as a reflection of the grotesque inequalities of global wealth and opportunity. If I was Syrian, say, especially one with dissident views, I would certainly try to come to a Western country, wouldn't you? So part of my solution is not to cut the aid budget, and not to use it as a means of projecting soft power, but to invest in making the countries of origin better places to live. As others have said, not arming their civil wars would be a useful start.
We can debate numbers - my figures would include families, and I'd be reasonably restrictive on what counted as family. Essentially the point is that it's an artificial divide to say that the right want to deport everyone and the left want to deport nobody - that leads to a pseudo-debate where we all fight straw men. Asking what number of refugees from terror we'd accept each year gives a more rational debate - in the real world, almost nobody says "none" or "everyone", so why pretend that they do?
It's important to stress that the ECHR doesn't give unlimited protection against deportation. Here's an example where a migrant was behaving so badly that he was deported even though he had lived in the country (Austria) for 14 years:
I would agree with you on the grotesque distortions in global wealth. Part may be to do with us but a lot is to do with those countries’ regimes. So what should we do on that front? Re-colonise the world? Seriously, many countries are in a poor state because they have poor governments and often that is not down to the West. It gets forgotten but many countries in Africa have been independent longer than they were colonies. How long do you want to go on blaming the West?
I’d also agree with you about the artificial divide. I want a fair and just asylum policy that protects those who are being persecuted. But I go back to the question I asked you before - how many asylum groups have ever claimed that some people should be deported and ever agreed that a deportation is just? Seriously, I cannot think of one example.
Do you support the Rwanda policy? If you want impactful policy I just do not see it.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
ID cards for all, and incentives (including a route to citizenship) for those who shop employers of illegal immigrants and people smugglers.
Illegal immigrants are already excluded from the benefits system, with no route to employment the incentives for people to try to enter illegally would be very much reduced.
There is merit in that and I am happy to have an ID card but not sure it is politically possible at present
It seems a little illogical to me to change the entire British way of life in order to hamper the course of illegal migration. It is surely simpler to (politely and kindly) prevent illegal migration in the first place.
As I have said before, and I believe others here have agreed the idea has merit, all British asylum claims should be processed overseas. The successful applicants would be brought to Britain and assisted in their new lives. Those who arrived in the UK to claim assylum would be taken to the nearest overseas claim centre. Those who arrived hoping to evade any authority at all would be swiftly deported. Thus no more dangerous boats, no more trafficking.
How does ID cards "change the entire British way of life"? I mean genuine question. Do you have a driver's licence?
Yes, but I've never had to show it to anyone
You've never had to show a driver's licence or passport? Have you applied for a job or rented a flat recently? Or claimed any benefits? Or opened a bank account?
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
If you know it isn’t true why were you levelling the accusation earlier?
Because that is what the "average" voter will think until Labour explains their policy on immigration.
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Is it their colour or just that they don't like foreigners? Would the same apply to Ukrainians?
I genuinely don’t get why Ukrainians are treated differently. Anyone want to square that?
There are plenty of bad reasons we treat them better (they look like us etc.)
About the only half-convincing reason I can think of is that we can be sure most will wish to return when the war is over. Is that true of the boat arrivals?
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
ID cards for all, and incentives (including a route to citizenship) for those who shop employers of illegal immigrants and people smugglers.
Illegal immigrants are already excluded from the benefits system, with no route to employment the incentives for people to try to enter illegally would be very much reduced.
There is merit in that and I am happy to have an ID card but not sure it is politically possible at present
It seems a little illogical to me to change the entire British way of life in order to hamper the course of illegal migration. It is surely simpler to (politely and kindly) prevent illegal migration in the first place.
As I have said before, and I believe others here have agreed the idea has merit, all British asylum claims should be processed overseas. The successful applicants would be brought to Britain and assisted in their new lives. Those who arrived in the UK to claim assylum would be taken to the nearest overseas claim centre. Those who arrived hoping to evade any authority at all would be swiftly deported. Thus no more dangerous boats, no more trafficking.
How does ID cards "change the entire British way of life"? I mean genuine question. Do you have a driver's licence?
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
And I would genuinely reply (again) that @rcs1000, @Cyclefree, and @Foxy are proposing various solutions that do not involve operating a PR stunt on the backs of a few benighted asylum seekers.
Their so-called “solutions” are comical
I mean, it's like asking a flint-knapper about Artificial Intelligence immigration policy.
Sunil is a gem who is privileged to be proximate to the next PM (or bar one).
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
But even though Labour says it doesn’t have one they still say it. So what is Labour supposed to do?
Emphasise:
1. The failure of the policy because it’s Ill thought out and fundamentally unserious 2. The waste of public resources on a gimmic when it could have been spent on the needs of hard pressed British voters
What is Labour's policy on immigration? until that is explained Boris will win because "at least he is trying to do something"
For what it’s worth, I don’t think Boris has any intention of withdrawing from the ECHR.
However he has every intention of stoking up division, hatred and witch-hunts by pretending he might do so.
Sunder Kutwala this morning highlighted that “You should be sent to Rwanda” is now being used as a term of abuse on David Lammy, Sadiq Khan, and even Priti Patel.
Meanwhile one of my friends - who happens to be a “lefty lawyer” involved in the asylum seeker defences - was today emailed that she was a “menacing whore waiting to be raped”.
I don’t really have much time for the idea that this is all fair dos because Boris gets to “own the libs”.
Asylum seekers.
Just one more group thrown under the bus to enable Big Dog to get through another week.
And the bonus is that lawyers go under the wheels as well. And we all know who is lawyer.
When will tory mps end this nightmare?
Burke and Thatcher must be turning in their graves.
Right because Thatcher would never have fucked over vulnerable people for political advantage
Well yes, Thatch was going on about being swamped by the foreigns back in ‘78. I daresay she might deplore BJ & co’s ineffectuality.
Why are we so keen to prevent asylum seekers entering the country when we are so short of workers? Afghans and Syrians are just as capable of wiping Express readers’ arses in their care homes as white people are.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
ID cards for all, and incentives (including a route to citizenship) for those who shop employers of illegal immigrants and people smugglers.
Illegal immigrants are already excluded from the benefits system, with no route to employment the incentives for people to try to enter illegally would be very much reduced.
There is merit in that and I am happy to have an ID card but not sure it is politically possible at present
It seems a little illogical to me to change the entire British way of life in order to hamper the course of illegal migration. It is surely simpler to (politely and kindly) prevent illegal migration in the first place.
As I have said before, and I believe others here have agreed the idea has merit, all British asylum claims should be processed overseas. The successful applicants would be brought to Britain and assisted in their new lives. Those who arrived in the UK to claim assylum would be taken to the nearest overseas claim centre. Those who arrived hoping to evade any authority at all would be swiftly deported. Thus no more dangerous boats, no more trafficking.
How does ID cards "change the entire British way of life"? I mean genuine question. Do you have a driver's licence?
No, I have a driving license.
So you presumably carry it?
I have it for driving, not for existing.
Well. That's fine. But don't whinge about immigration then. You need ID for all kinds of regular stuff. It's just that there isn't any one official thing. I presume you go abroad? Does your aversion to carrying ID prevent that?
So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.
It hasn't happened yet, if it isn't happening it won't deter people.
If it does happen, then it will deter people.
Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.
The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
But even though Labour says it doesn’t have one they still say it. So what is Labour supposed to do?
Emphasise:
1. The failure of the policy because it’s Ill thought out and fundamentally unserious 2. The waste of public resources on a gimmic when it could have been spent on the needs of hard pressed British voters
What is Labour's policy on immigration? until that is explained Boris will win because "at least he is trying to do something"
I agree, it’s something the Tories will probably win. Labour need to rubbish the Rwanda gimmickry enough to make it a costly victory, and focus on winning on the economy, cost of living, business investment, tax, education, healthcare, and all the other things the government are utterly shit at.
Almost every paper has word 'Rwanda' in big letters on front page.
Grim.
But this is what Starmer's Labour is up against. Brutal. No prisoners. Nothing too low.
How should they respond?
Can they take gloves off?
As I said. Genius policy.
Well, the policy isn't genius but the presentation of what the policy might be is genius.
Labour need to wake up. This is what the next GE will be like. This week or so has been a dry run. Johnson will have something so wedgy and so popularist and so tabloidy that it will totally dominate the second or third week of the GE campaign and NOTHING that Labour have on their grid will get a moment.
I am not sure Starmer is the man for this cage fight.
I'm musing out loud now after a couple at the pub, but...
Maybe Wes Streeting is the only one up for this level of friction?
Or Pat McFadden?
Who is Labour's Crosby?
Next GE will be a bloodbath of dirt. Johnson will throw everything at winning.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
1) intern arrivals in assessment camps 2) provide medical and legal support to accelerate assessment 3) resolve applications swiftly and fairly 4) keep failed applicants in internment camps in the UK until they are deported or voluntarily leave.
Ludicrous. Utterly ludicrous
It was tried. I believe a judge ordered the release of all of them in one camp because there wasn’t a good enough mobile phone signal and that was deemed cruel & unusual punishment
Almost every paper has word 'Rwanda' in big letters on front page.
Grim.
But this is what Starmer's Labour is up against. Brutal. No prisoners. Nothing too low.
How should they respond?
Can they take gloves off?
As I said. Genius policy.
Well, the policy isn't genius but the presentation of what the policy might be is genius.
Labour need to wake up. This is what the next GE will be like. This week or so has been a dry run. Johnson will have something so wedgy and so popularist and so tabloidy that it will totally dominate the second or third week of the GE campaign and NOTHING that Labour have on their grid will get a moment.
I am not sure Starmer is the man for this cage fight.
I'm musing out loud now after a couple at the pub, but...
Maybe Wes Streeting is the only one up for this level of friction?
Or Pat McFadden?
Who is Labour's Crosby?
Next GE will be a bloodbath of dirt. Johnson will throw everything at winning.
Instead of spending over a hundred million to ship migrants off to Rwanda couldn’t you have spent that on quicker processing of migrants and more co- operation with the French.
Almost every paper has word 'Rwanda' in big letters on front page.
Grim.
But this is what Starmer's Labour is up against. Brutal. No prisoners. Nothing too low.
How should they respond?
Can they take gloves off?
As I said. Genius policy.
Well, the policy isn't genius but the presentation of what the policy might be is genius.
Labour need to wake up. This is what the next GE will be like. This week or so has been a dry run. Johnson will have something so wedgy and so popularist and so tabloidy that it will totally dominate the second or third week of the GE campaign and NOTHING that Labour have on their grid will get a moment.
I am not sure Starmer is the man for this cage fight.
I'm musing out loud now after a couple at the pub, but...
Maybe Wes Streeting is the only one up for this level of friction?
Or Pat McFadden?
Who is Labour's Crosby?
Next GE will be a bloodbath of dirt. Johnson will throw everything at winning.
It doesn’t bear thinking about. Ideally Labour need someone with a sunny and optimistic disposition who can charm the voters, like Blair. Starmer isn’t that person but he may be able to grind out a messy artillery stalemate that gets him into no 10 with Lib Dem support.
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
But even though Labour says it doesn’t have one they still say it. So what is Labour supposed to do?
Emphasise:
1. The failure of the policy because it’s Ill thought out and fundamentally unserious 2. The waste of public resources on a gimmic when it could have been spent on the needs of hard pressed British voters
What is Labour's policy on immigration? until that is explained Boris will win because "at least he is trying to do something"
Wrong. And Big G repeated this same daft line of the governments earlier.
For years this government has had supporters and focus groups screaming at them to sort this out. They havn’t had a policy that will work. This still isn’t a working policy either, it’s a contrivance to disguise they havn’t a clue what works. It’s costs to the nation at this time are scary, wether it works depends on it acting like a deterrent - which every single one of us knows it won’t deter anyone.
If people wish to be in government they have to come up with working policys, not put this unworkable junk out there and say “we are trying to do something, suggest something that works then.”
It’s THEIR job to come up with something that works if they wish to remain in power. That’s how it’s always worked, and that’s how it’s working here.
Instead of spending over a hundred million to ship migrants off to Rwanda couldn’t you have spent that on quicker processing of migrants and more co- operation with the French.
QTWAIN.
We've spent many millions on processing and the French already. That's a futile black hole already.
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
1) intern arrivals in assessment camps 2) provide medical and legal support to accelerate assessment 3) resolve applications swiftly and fairly 4) keep failed applicants in internment camps in the UK until they are deported or voluntarily leave.
Ludicrous. Utterly ludicrous
It was tried. I believe a judge ordered the release of all of them in one camp because there wasn’t a good enough mobile phone signal and that was deemed cruel & unusual punishment
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
And I would genuinely reply (again) that @rcs1000, @Cyclefree, and @Foxy are proposing various solutions that do not involve operating a PR stunt on the backs of a few benighted asylum seekers.
Their so-called “solutions” are comical
I mean, it's like asking a flint-knapper about Artificial Intelligence immigration policy.
So @Leon thinks my so-called solutions are 'comical', does he?
Would this be the same Leon who earlier today wrote this when I summarised my suggested solutions:
So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.
It hasn't happened yet, if it isn't happening it won't deter people.
If it does happen, then it will deter people.
Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.
The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
Tony Abbott was a particularly vocal advocate of stopping the boats and offshore processing of asylum cases, which helped him win the 2013 Australian election
Possibly because having the first war in Europe since World War Two is regarded as exceptional?
This is tangential to the point you were making, but can we stop calling it the first war in Europe since World War Two? What of the Slovenian War of Independence, the Croatian War of Independence, the Bosnian War, the Kosovo War, the Greek Civil War, the Cyprus Emergency, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the Transnistria War and the Albanian Civil War?
Could there possibly be a better headline for Brexit supporters than this?
"Rwanda deportation flight blocked by European judges Asylum seekers win injunctions to remove them from the plane, just hours after a UK court had rejected their plea"
So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.
It hasn't happened yet, if it isn't happening it won't deter people.
If it does happen, then it will deter people.
Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.
The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
I supported you yesterday Barty, on NIP, but you posted there is ridiculous. The UK plan is not the same as Australian system, the Australian system didn’t work as well as you claim, and the problem the UK is facing on illegal migration is different.
At least concede those three points, before building a case in favour.
I’ve seen similar in translations of Russian discussions on Telegram. It’s interesting, if depressing. “So what is your solution to the Ukraine question then?”
A universal rhetorical device: do something that doesn’t work, then shift the pressure on to the opponent by demanding they have a better idea, while rubbishing everything they do suggest.
Could there possibly be a better headline for Brexit supporters than this?
"Rwanda deportation flight blocked by European judges Asylum seekers win injunctions to remove them from the plane, just hours after a UK court had rejected their plea"
Could there possibly be a better headline for Brexit supporters than this?
"Rwanda deportation flight blocked by European judges Asylum seekers win injunctions to remove them from the plane, just hours after a UK court had rejected their plea"
Johnson said he got Brexit done so for those who think the ECHR is an EU organization they’ll wonder why the judges are still involved .
The Supreme Court of the UK MUST be supreme. Americans would not tolerate, for a second, their Supreme Court being overruled by the Human Rights Court of the Americas, sitting in Mexico City
And nor should we tolerate the equivalent
It’s time to exit the ECHR. This is Why Brexit. Do it
Almost every paper has word 'Rwanda' in big letters on front page.
Grim.
But this is what Starmer's Labour is up against. Brutal. No prisoners. Nothing too low.
How should they respond?
Can they take gloves off?
As I said. Genius policy.
Well, the policy isn't genius but the presentation of what the policy might be is genius.
Labour need to wake up. This is what the next GE will be like. This week or so has been a dry run. Johnson will have something so wedgy and so popularist and so tabloidy that it will totally dominate the second or third week of the GE campaign and NOTHING that Labour have on their grid will get a moment.
I am not sure Starmer is the man for this cage fight.
I'm musing out loud now after a couple at the pub, but...
Maybe Wes Streeting is the only one up for this level of friction?
Or Pat McFadden?
Who is Labour's Crosby?
Next GE will be a bloodbath of dirt. Johnson will throw everything at winning.
It doesn’t bear thinking about. Ideally Labour need someone with a sunny and optimistic disposition who can charm the voters, like Blair. Starmer isn’t that person but he may be able to grind out a messy artillery stalemate that gets him into no 10 with Lib Dem support.
Yep, that is basically the level of expectation.
Scrape over the line.
Most of Labour seem to hate Blair but boy do they need someone like him now.
Could there possibly be a better headline for Brexit supporters than this?
"Rwanda deportation flight blocked by European judges Asylum seekers win injunctions to remove them from the plane, just hours after a UK court had rejected their plea"
Possibly because having the first war in Europe since World War Two is regarded as exceptional?
This is tangential to the point you were making, but can we stop calling it the first war in Europe since World War Two? What of the Slovenian War of Independence, the Croatian War of Independence, the Bosnian War, the Kosovo War, the Greek Civil War, the Cyprus Emergency, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the Transnistria War and the Albanian Civil War?
Unless I'm mistaken all of those are Civil wars (which are anything but civil).
Apart from the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, which wasn't a significant war, unless I'm mistaken this is the first significant war of aggression to try to change borders as opposed to a civil war.
Perhaps a distinction without a difference to the victims of the other wars, but still significant.
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
But even though Labour says it doesn’t have one they still say it. So what is Labour supposed to do?
Emphasise:
1. The failure of the policy because it’s Ill thought out and fundamentally unserious 2. The waste of public resources on a gimmic when it could have been spent on the needs of hard pressed British voters
What is Labour's policy on immigration? until that is explained Boris will win because "at least he is trying to do something"
Wrong. And Big G repeated this same daft line of the governments earlier.
For years this government has had supporters and focus groups screaming at them to sort this out. They havn’t had a policy that will work. This still isn’t a working policy either, it’s a contrivance to disguise they havn’t a clue what works. It’s costs to the nation at this time are scary, wether it works depends on it acting like a deterrent - which every single one of us knows it won’t deter anyone.
If people wish to be in government they have to come up with working policys, not put this unworkable junk out there and say “we are trying to do something, suggest something that works then.”
It’s THEIR job to come up with something that works if they wish to remain in power. That’s how it’s always worked, and that’s how it’s working here.
Predictable split in the papers tonight- usual suspects on both sides blaming Euro-judges and government incompetnece. The government's problem is this.
There are goodish reasons to think that, even if the legal SNAFUs get sorted this policy is not going to succeed in its aim. In particular, it's too easily overwhelmed by sheer numbers. Today's plane, even if it had been full, was less than today's boat people. That's the farcial element.
Johnson and co get good headlines today- they had this brilliant idea, rotten lefty lawyers stopped it, but they will be overcome. Fine. Today. But then what? Either the government picks a fight with the lawyers and loses (bad), or worse still- the government wins. Because then they have no excuse not to run this... and the damn thing still won't work. And then what?
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
ID cards for all, and incentives (including a route to citizenship) for those who shop employers of illegal immigrants and people smugglers.
Illegal immigrants are already excluded from the benefits system, with no route to employment the incentives for people to try to enter illegally would be very much reduced.
There is merit in that and I am happy to have an ID card but not sure it is politically possible at present
It seems a little illogical to me to change the entire British way of life in order to hamper the course of illegal migration. It is surely simpler to (politely and kindly) prevent illegal migration in the first place.
As I have said before, and I believe others here have agreed the idea has merit, all British asylum claims should be processed overseas. The successful applicants would be brought to Britain and assisted in their new lives. Those who arrived in the UK to claim assylum would be taken to the nearest overseas claim centre. Those who arrived hoping to evade any authority at all would be swiftly deported. Thus no more dangerous boats, no more trafficking.
How does ID cards "change the entire British way of life"? I mean genuine question. Do you have a driver's licence?
No, I have a driving license.
So you presumably carry it?
I have it for driving, not for existing.
Well. That's fine. But don't whinge about immigration then. You need ID for all kinds of regular stuff. It's just that there isn't any one official thing. I presume you go abroad? Does your aversion to carrying ID prevent that?
I can whinge about immigration as much as I like thank you, the solution doesn't need to involve draconian monitoring of all citizens to 'weed out' those working illegally. It is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.
It hasn't happened yet, if it isn't happening it won't deter people.
If it does happen, then it will deter people.
Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.
The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
I supported you yesterday Barty, on NIP, but you posted there is ridiculous. The UK plan is not the same as Australian system, the Australian system didn’t work as well as you claim, and the problem the UK is facing on illegal migration is different.
At least concede those three points, before building a case in favour.
The Australian system did work as well as I claim, there hasn't been a single death by drowning from illegal boat crossings since the system was put in place. That is an incredible achievement, if we could achieve the same in the UK then great.
The plan is not the same, but it could be, if implemented properly. But to work it means that virtually all irregular boat crossings end up in Rwanda, which would halt the irregular boat crossings, rather than none of them or an inconsequential proportion of them.
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
But even though Labour says it doesn’t have one they still say it. So what is Labour supposed to do?
Emphasise:
1. The failure of the policy because it’s Ill thought out and fundamentally unserious 2. The waste of public resources on a gimmic when it could have been spent on the needs of hard pressed British voters
What is Labour's policy on immigration? until that is explained Boris will win because "at least he is trying to do something"
Wrong. And Big G repeated this same daft line of the governments earlier.
For years this government has had supporters and focus groups screaming at them to sort this out. They havn’t had a policy that will work. This still isn’t a working policy either, it’s a contrivance to disguise they havn’t a clue what works. It’s costs to the nation at this time are scary, wether it works depends on it acting like a deterrent - which every single one of us knows it won’t deter anyone.
If people wish to be in government they have to come up with working policys, not put this unworkable junk out there and say “we are trying to do something, suggest something that works then.”
It’s THEIR job to come up with something that works if they wish to remain in power. That’s how it’s always worked, and that’s how it’s working here.
Whilst you may be right again I repeat to the "average" voter BJ is seen to be doing something - The current asylum system is costing the taxpayer £1.5 billion a year, the highest amount in over two decades.
Could there possibly be a better headline for Brexit supporters than this?
"Rwanda deportation flight blocked by European judges Asylum seekers win injunctions to remove them from the plane, just hours after a UK court had rejected their plea"
Johnson said he got Brexit done so for those who think the ECHR is an EU organization they’ll wonder why the judges are still involved .
The Supreme Court of the UK MUST be supreme. Americans would not tolerate, for a second, their Supreme Court being overruled by the Human Rights Court of the Americas, sitting in Mexico City
And nor should we tolerate the equivalent
It’s time to exit the ECHR. This is Why Brexit. Do it
Theresa May used to be a strong advocate of leaving the ECHR.
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
But even though Labour says it doesn’t have one they still say it. So what is Labour supposed to do?
Emphasise:
1. The failure of the policy because it’s Ill thought out and fundamentally unserious 2. The waste of public resources on a gimmic when it could have been spent on the needs of hard pressed British voters
What is Labour's policy on immigration? until that is explained Boris will win because "at least he is trying to do something"
Wrong. And Big G repeated this same daft line of the governments earlier.
For years this government has had supporters and focus groups screaming at them to sort this out. They havn’t had a policy that will work. This still isn’t a working policy either, it’s a contrivance to disguise they havn’t a clue what works. It’s costs to the nation at this time are scary, wether it works depends on it acting like a deterrent - which every single one of us knows it won’t deter anyone.
If people wish to be in government they have to come up with working policys, not put this unworkable junk out there and say “we are trying to do something, suggest something that works then.”
It’s THEIR job to come up with something that works if they wish to remain in power. That’s how it’s always worked, and that’s how it’s working here.
Predictable split in the papers tonight- usual suspects on both sides blaming Euro-judges and government incompetnece. The government's problem is this.
There are goodish reasons to think that, even if the legal SNAFUs get sorted this policy is not going to succeed in its aim. In particular, it's too easily overwhelmed by sheer numbers. Today's plane, even if it had been full, was less than today's boat people. That's the farcial element.
Johnson and co get good headlines today- they had this brilliant idea, rotten lefty lawyers stopped it, but they will be overcome. Fine. Today. But then what? Either the government picks a fight with the lawyers and loses (bad), or worse still- the government wins. Because then they have no excuse not to run this... and the damn thing still won't work. And then what?
Your number argument is fallacious.
If all boat crossings get told they're going to Rwanda, then the number of people going to Rwanda will be next-to-zero since the boat crossings would stop almost overnight. That is precisely what happened in Australia, they said in 2013 that everyone would end up offshore if they crossed via boat, as a result the boat crossings dropped from tens of thousands to virtually zero in comparison, so nearly nobody had to be offshored from 2014 onwards because nearly nobody were crossing anymore.
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
But even though Labour says it doesn’t have one they still say it. So what is Labour supposed to do?
Emphasise:
1. The failure of the policy because it’s Ill thought out and fundamentally unserious 2. The waste of public resources on a gimmic when it could have been spent on the needs of hard pressed British voters
What is Labour's policy on immigration? until that is explained Boris will win because "at least he is trying to do something"
Wrong. And Big G repeated this same daft line of the governments earlier.
For years this government has had supporters and focus groups screaming at them to sort this out. They havn’t had a policy that will work. This still isn’t a working policy either, it’s a contrivance to disguise they havn’t a clue what works. It’s costs to the nation at this time are scary, wether it works depends on it acting like a deterrent - which every single one of us knows it won’t deter anyone.
If people wish to be in government they have to come up with working policys, not put this unworkable junk out there and say “we are trying to do something, suggest something that works then.”
It’s THEIR job to come up with something that works if they wish to remain in power. That’s how it’s always worked, and that’s how it’s working here.
Whilst you may be right again I repeat to the "average" voter BJ is seen to be doing something - The current asylum system is costing the taxpayer £1.5 billion a year, the highest amount in over two decades.
How long can you pretend you are getting somewhere with a problem before getting found out and your credibility comes crashing. This is why it didn’t go to commons vote, because the back benchers saw it wasn’t going to work and be expensive disaster so would have said no.
Could there possibly be a better headline for Brexit supporters than this?
"Rwanda deportation flight blocked by European judges Asylum seekers win injunctions to remove them from the plane, just hours after a UK court had rejected their plea"
Johnson said he got Brexit done so for those who think the ECHR is an EU organization they’ll wonder why the judges are still involved .
The Supreme Court of the UK MUST be supreme. Americans would not tolerate, for a second, their Supreme Court being overruled by the Human Rights Court of the Americas, sitting in Mexico City
And nor should we tolerate the equivalent
It’s time to exit the ECHR. This is Why Brexit. Do it
I agree. The law should be determined in Parliament and subject to democratic consent and not unelected judges in Europe.
Civilised common law nations around the world don't need the ECHR, while the ECHR didn't stop Vladimir Putin who led Russia as an ECHR member for nearly a quarter of a century. The ECHR might have been a good idea post-war, but its an idea whose time has come and gone, a failed experiment.
Could there possibly be a better headline for Brexit supporters than this?
"Rwanda deportation flight blocked by European judges Asylum seekers win injunctions to remove them from the plane, just hours after a UK court had rejected their plea"
Johnson said he got Brexit done so for those who think the ECHR is an EU organization they’ll wonder why the judges are still involved .
The Supreme Court of the UK MUST be supreme. Americans would not tolerate, for a second, their Supreme Court being overruled by the Human Rights Court of the Americas, sitting in Mexico City
And nor should we tolerate the equivalent
It’s time to exit the ECHR. This is Why Brexit. Do it
What if the UK Supreme Court deems the Rwandan policy illegal . What then ? Will we see more enemies of the people headlines dished out or will Patel threaten to politicize the court . The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the policy yet so they haven’t been over ruled.
Johnson knew the policy was likely to be caught up in legal challenges and wanted a fight with the ECHR so his plan has worked well . Then he dupes the plebs into greenlighting leaving the ECHR and they happily wave away their rights .
Could there possibly be a better headline for Brexit supporters than this?
"Rwanda deportation flight blocked by European judges Asylum seekers win injunctions to remove them from the plane, just hours after a UK court had rejected their plea"
Johnson said he got Brexit done so for those who think the ECHR is an EU organization they’ll wonder why the judges are still involved .
The Supreme Court of the UK MUST be supreme. Americans would not tolerate, for a second, their Supreme Court being overruled by the Human Rights Court of the Americas, sitting in Mexico City
And nor should we tolerate the equivalent
It’s time to exit the ECHR. This is Why Brexit. Do it
Theresa May used to be a strong advocate of leaving the ECHR.
The idea that the ECHR has “nothing to do with the EU” would be an interesting idea to test on voters
Because the EU has spent decades deliberately blurring the divide between them, so as to create a European legal identity, and much else
eg I challenge anyone to read this website and successfully disentangle the participants: EU, ECHR, Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, and so on
So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.
It hasn't happened yet, if it isn't happening it won't deter people.
If it does happen, then it will deter people.
Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.
The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
I supported you yesterday Barty, on NIP, but you posted there is ridiculous. The UK plan is not the same as Australian system, the Australian system didn’t work as well as you claim, and the problem the UK is facing on illegal migration is different.
At least concede those three points, before building a case in favour.
The Australian system did work as well as I claim, there hasn't been a single death by drowning from illegal boat crossings since the system was put in place. That is an incredible achievement, if we could achieve the same in the UK then great.
The plan is not the same, but it could be, if implemented properly. But to work it means that virtually all irregular boat crossings end up in Rwanda, which would halt the irregular boat crossings, rather than none of them or an inconsequential proportion of them.
Stu from Romford just explained it better than I can why this cannot work here. In fact a lot of people have, and in a way they are actually trying to help the people who arn’t listening, like the stuff you are posting. We arn’t trying to hurt anyone or play politics here, we are just trying to get the Penny to drop for you, don’t use Oz as example to the success this could be.
I’ll have one more go. A cold shower of the raw stats.
3,127 people were sent to Papua New Guinea/ Nauru since 2013 at cost to Australian taxpayer of AUS$10 billion. £1.7m per person.
Last year, 28,526 crossed the channel in small boats.
Patel herself has pointed out the two schemes are not the same. Ours isn’t offshore processing to prevent a trip, ours is old school colonialism to deter a trip.
How do you see this changing peoples minds about coming here? Do you really genuinely believe it will make any great number pause and rethink?
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
But even though Labour says it doesn’t have one they still say it. So what is Labour supposed to do?
Emphasise:
1. The failure of the policy because it’s Ill thought out and fundamentally unserious 2. The waste of public resources on a gimmic when it could have been spent on the needs of hard pressed British voters
What is Labour's policy on immigration? until that is explained Boris will win because "at least he is trying to do something"
Wrong. And Big G repeated this same daft line of the governments earlier.
For years this government has had supporters and focus groups screaming at them to sort this out. They havn’t had a policy that will work. This still isn’t a working policy either, it’s a contrivance to disguise they havn’t a clue what works. It’s costs to the nation at this time are scary, wether it works depends on it acting like a deterrent - which every single one of us knows it won’t deter anyone.
If people wish to be in government they have to come up with working policys, not put this unworkable junk out there and say “we are trying to do something, suggest something that works then.”
It’s THEIR job to come up with something that works if they wish to remain in power. That’s how it’s always worked, and that’s how it’s working here.
Whilst you may be right again I repeat to the "average" voter BJ is seen to be doing something - The current asylum system is costing the taxpayer £1.5 billion a year, the highest amount in over two decades.
How long can you pretend you are getting somewhere with a problem before getting found out and your credibility comes crashing. This is why it didn’t go to commons vote, because the back benchers saw it wasn’t going to work and be expensive disaster so would have said no.
There is absolutely no reason why it can't work. If the law is changed so that anyone crossing by boat is sent by rendition directly to Rwanda, do not pass go, do not get access to lawyers, then the drownings would stop almost overnight.
Possibly because having the first war in Europe since World War Two is regarded as exceptional?
This is tangential to the point you were making, but can we stop calling it the first war in Europe since World War Two? What of the Slovenian War of Independence, the Croatian War of Independence, the Bosnian War, the Kosovo War, the Greek Civil War, the Cyprus Emergency, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the Transnistria War and the Albanian Civil War?
Unless I'm mistaken all of those are Civil wars (which are anything but civil).
Apart from the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, which wasn't a significant war, unless I'm mistaken this is the first significant war of aggression to try to change borders as opposed to a civil war.
Perhaps a distinction without a difference to the victims of the other wars, but still significant.
You didn't say first war between two nations that were separate at the start of the conflict. Civil wars are still wars. Most of those civil wars changed borders. Most of them involved outside parties as well.
The Turkish invasion of Cyprus involved about 75000 troops, and maybe up to 10000 casualties. It fundamentally altered the geopolitical situation in Cyrpus. Over 200,000 people were displaced. It was a significant war. It was over relatively quickly, about a month, as Turkey achieved the sort of military victory Putin thought he would.
I don't wish in any way to minimise the significance of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but I think we forget history too easily.
This was Theresa May on the ECHR during the referendum campaign:
The ECHR can bind the hands of Parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights. So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this. If we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its Court.
I can already hear certain people saying this means I’m against human rights. But human rights were not invented in 1950, when the Convention was drafted, or in 1998, when it was incorporated into our law through the Human Rights Act. This is Great Britain – the country of Magna Carta, Parliamentary democracy and the fairest courts in the world – and we can protect human rights ourselves in a way that doesn’t jeopardise national security or bind the hands of Parliament. A true British Bill of Rights – decided by Parliament and amended by Parliament – would protect not only the rights set out in the Convention but could include traditional British rights not protected by the ECHR, such as the right to trial by jury.
Could there possibly be a better headline for Brexit supporters than this?
"Rwanda deportation flight blocked by European judges Asylum seekers win injunctions to remove them from the plane, just hours after a UK court had rejected their plea"
Johnson said he got Brexit done so for those who think the ECHR is an EU organization they’ll wonder why the judges are still involved .
The Supreme Court of the UK MUST be supreme. Americans would not tolerate, for a second, their Supreme Court being overruled by the Human Rights Court of the Americas, sitting in Mexico City
And nor should we tolerate the equivalent
It’s time to exit the ECHR. This is Why Brexit. Do it
What if the UK Supreme Court deems the Rwandan policy illegal . What then ? Will we see more enemies of the people headlines dished out or will Patel threaten to politicize the court . The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the policy yet so they haven’t been over ruled.
Johnson knew the policy was likely to be caught up in legal challenges and wanted a fight with the ECHR so his plan has worked well . Then he dupes the plebs into greenlighting leaving the ECHR and they happily wave away their rights .
If a UK Supreme Court blocks a government policy that’s fine by me. That’s democracy working. Even if it is lefty lawyers. You need judicial restraint on government.
What we don’t need any more is foreign judges, entirely unanswerable to the British people, sitting in a foreign court, and deciding what happens to British migration policy. Enough
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
But even though Labour says it doesn’t have one they still say it. So what is Labour supposed to do?
Emphasise:
1. The failure of the policy because it’s Ill thought out and fundamentally unserious 2. The waste of public resources on a gimmic when it could have been spent on the needs of hard pressed British voters
What is Labour's policy on immigration? until that is explained Boris will win because "at least he is trying to do something"
Wrong. And Big G repeated this same daft line of the governments earlier.
For years this government has had supporters and focus groups screaming at them to sort this out. They havn’t had a policy that will work. This still isn’t a working policy either, it’s a contrivance to disguise they havn’t a clue what works. It’s costs to the nation at this time are scary, wether it works depends on it acting like a deterrent - which every single one of us knows it won’t deter anyone.
If people wish to be in government they have to come up with working policys, not put this unworkable junk out there and say “we are trying to do something, suggest something that works then.”
It’s THEIR job to come up with something that works if they wish to remain in power. That’s how it’s always worked, and that’s how it’s working here.
Whilst you may be right again I repeat to the "average" voter BJ is seen to be doing something - The current asylum system is costing the taxpayer £1.5 billion a year, the highest amount in over two decades.
How long can you pretend you are getting somewhere with a problem before getting found out and your credibility comes crashing. This is why it didn’t go to commons vote, because the back benchers saw it wasn’t going to work and be expensive disaster so would have said no.
Boris doesn't have any credibility - he will keep on and on blaming other people such as Labour for its non-working
It would have been far better to give the policy a fair shot and let it die and fail on its own merits.
It is dying on its own merits.
It's not legal...
It’s perfectly legal. There dozens of lawyers trying to find spurious grounds to get their clients off at the last minute - appealing to all and sundry to delay/obstruct and obfuscate - often changing the grounds for appeal as and when it suits them. And even if it wasn’t - which it isn’t - the government are entitled to change the law to legislate so it is, which would no doubt be obstructed in turn.
Don’t be too clever. If no solution is found to this then at some point you risk a demagogue authoritarian leader being elected who upon taking office who rips up the rule book and drives a cart & horses through all laws and all lawyers with all sorts of knock on consequences.
(You’re utterly predictable, so you’ll probably respond with something like “we’ve already got one: Boris. Brexit etc.” but that’s your hyperbolic neurotic obsession talking and totally at odds with the reality of what could come next)
If you think such a reaction (from leftists) both predictable and liable to lead to “a demagogue authoritarian leader”, why on earth would you support the government’s policy.
Because they really piss me off and this really pisses them off. And I want them to feel it.
It gets that visceral. That’s what Boris has correctly assessed.
If I was calm I’d say Starmer should come up with better and more effective solutions, along the lines of what cyclefree and rcs1000 outlined earlier, but he needs to rein in the broader mobs of his movement first and go high when Boris goes low.
Have you considered asking yourself why you are so pissed off? Seriously.
You yourself describe Boris as “going low”; so why does that seem not to annoy you as much as the “predictable response”?
Because I know the opponents aren’t interested in solutions - let’s not be naive: they believe in open borders and maximising migration and are using their resources and the full force of the law to advocate and organise for it.
They have no better answers than Rwanda so it makes me want to support it on principle.
As for the opponents, I don’t think various Archbishops and the Prince of Wales and, according to some polling, at least a third of the country, believe in “open borders and maximising migration”, although I concede that some might.
At least in my case, I don’t have a specific objection to Rwanda outright. However I object on the grounds that this does not seem to be a coherent policy unto itself but more a cruel PR stunt.
I object to people’s lives - especially that of the most desperate - being used this way.
I would just ask genuinely how you would resolve these channel crossings because they do have to be resolved as we cannot continue to see these drownings?
ID cards for all, and incentives (including a route to citizenship) for those who shop employers of illegal immigrants and people smugglers.
Illegal immigrants are already excluded from the benefits system, with no route to employment the incentives for people to try to enter illegally would be very much reduced.
There is merit in that and I am happy to have an ID card but not sure it is politically possible at present
It seems a little illogical to me to change the entire British way of life in order to hamper the course of illegal migration. It is surely simpler to (politely and kindly) prevent illegal migration in the first place.
As I have said before, and I believe others here have agreed the idea has merit, all British asylum claims should be processed overseas. The successful applicants would be brought to Britain and assisted in their new lives. Those who arrived in the UK to claim assylum would be taken to the nearest overseas claim centre. Those who arrived hoping to evade any authority at all would be swiftly deported. Thus no more dangerous boats, no more trafficking.
How does ID cards "change the entire British way of life"? I mean genuine question. Do you have a driver's licence?
No, I have a driving license.
So you presumably carry it?
I have it for driving, not for existing.
Well. That's fine. But don't whinge about immigration then. You need ID for all kinds of regular stuff. It's just that there isn't any one official thing. I presume you go abroad? Does your aversion to carrying ID prevent that?
I can whinge about immigration as much as I like thank you, the solution doesn't need to involve draconian monitoring of all citizens to 'weed out' those working illegally. It is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
ID cards is an idea that repeats every few years, it is quite clearly a solution looking for a problem that circulates around Whitehall and Westminster periodically.
Even for the problems it would allegedly solve, it would create additional potential problems and other means could be attempted to solve the problem.
Possibly because having the first war in Europe since World War Two is regarded as exceptional?
This is tangential to the point you were making, but can we stop calling it the first war in Europe since World War Two? What of the Slovenian War of Independence, the Croatian War of Independence, the Bosnian War, the Kosovo War, the Greek Civil War, the Cyprus Emergency, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the Transnistria War and the Albanian Civil War?
Unless I'm mistaken all of those are Civil wars (which are anything but civil).
Apart from the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, which wasn't a significant war, unless I'm mistaken this is the first significant war of aggression to try to change borders as opposed to a civil war.
Perhaps a distinction without a difference to the victims of the other wars, but still significant.
It was certainly significant to those who lost everything and became refugees in their own country . Nicosia remains the only divided capital city anywhere in the world .
So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.
It hasn't happened yet, if it isn't happening it won't deter people.
If it does happen, then it will deter people.
Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.
The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
I supported you yesterday Barty, on NIP, but you posted there is ridiculous. The UK plan is not the same as Australian system, the Australian system didn’t work as well as you claim, and the problem the UK is facing on illegal migration is different.
At least concede those three points, before building a case in favour.
The Australian system did work as well as I claim, there hasn't been a single death by drowning from illegal boat crossings since the system was put in place. That is an incredible achievement, if we could achieve the same in the UK then great.
The plan is not the same, but it could be, if implemented properly. But to work it means that virtually all irregular boat crossings end up in Rwanda, which would halt the irregular boat crossings, rather than none of them or an inconsequential proportion of them.
Stu from Romford just explained it better than I can why this cannot work here. In fact a lot of people have, and in a way they are actually trying to help the people who arn’t listening, like the stuff you are posting. We arn’t trying to hurt anyone or play politics here, we are just trying to get the Penny to drop for you, don’t use Oz as example to the success this could be.
I’ll have one more go. A cold shower of the raw stats.
3,127 people were sent to Papua New Guinea/ Nauru since 2013 at cost to Australian taxpayer of AUS$10 billion. £1.7m per person.
Last year, 28,526 crossed the channel in small boats.
Patel herself has pointed out the two schemes are not the same. Ours isn’t offshore processing to prevent a trip, ours is old school colonialism to deter a trip.
How do you see this changing peoples minds about coming here? Do you really genuinely believe it will make any great number pause and rethink?
FFS the numbers since 2013 are diminished by the fact that the crossings all-but stopped after the policy came into force, because the policy worked. What part of that are you struggling to understand?
The figures to look at for the policy aren't the post-2013 stats, they're the pre-2013 ones as that shows what has been deterred. In 2012 over 17 thousand people crossed by boat there, a number comparable to the numbers crossing the Channel.
AUD$1billion per annum since then is an absolute bargain, compared to the estimated £1.5bn the UK is spending today and if you divide it "per person" with the 2012 figure of 17,000 then it isn't £1.7m per person, it is AUD$55,823 per person or GBP £33.7k per person. £33k per person deterred is a very different figure compared to the current costs.
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
But even though Labour says it doesn’t have one they still say it. So what is Labour supposed to do?
Emphasise:
1. The failure of the policy because it’s Ill thought out and fundamentally unserious 2. The waste of public resources on a gimmic when it could have been spent on the needs of hard pressed British voters
What is Labour's policy on immigration? until that is explained Boris will win because "at least he is trying to do something"
Wrong. And Big G repeated this same daft line of the governments earlier.
For years this government has had supporters and focus groups screaming at them to sort this out. They havn’t had a policy that will work. This still isn’t a working policy either, it’s a contrivance to disguise they havn’t a clue what works. It’s costs to the nation at this time are scary, wether it works depends on it acting like a deterrent - which every single one of us knows it won’t deter anyone.
If people wish to be in government they have to come up with working policys, not put this unworkable junk out there and say “we are trying to do something, suggest something that works then.”
It’s THEIR job to come up with something that works if they wish to remain in power. That’s how it’s always worked, and that’s how it’s working here.
Whilst you may be right again I repeat to the "average" voter BJ is seen to be doing something - The current asylum system is costing the taxpayer £1.5 billion a year, the highest amount in over two decades.
How long can you pretend you are getting somewhere with a problem before getting found out and your credibility comes crashing. This is why it didn’t go to commons vote, because the back benchers saw it wasn’t going to work and be expensive disaster so would have said no.
Boris doesn't have any credibility - he will keep on and on blaming other people such as Labour for its non-working
There will be only a certain amount of road in that approach. The truth is a non solution is all they have because they don’t as yet have a solution.
Sometimes, like the migrations during the industrial revolution, there is nothing you can do about what is happening, what peoples needs and wants are. The deterrent factor of this was never going to work, the UK this year is even more a flame calling the moths than it was last year and year before.
Could there possibly be a better headline for Brexit supporters than this?
"Rwanda deportation flight blocked by European judges Asylum seekers win injunctions to remove them from the plane, just hours after a UK court had rejected their plea"
Johnson said he got Brexit done so for those who think the ECHR is an EU organization they’ll wonder why the judges are still involved .
The Supreme Court of the UK MUST be supreme. Americans would not tolerate, for a second, their Supreme Court being overruled by the Human Rights Court of the Americas, sitting in Mexico City
And nor should we tolerate the equivalent
It’s time to exit the ECHR. This is Why Brexit. Do it
What if the UK Supreme Court deems the Rwandan policy illegal . What then ? Will we see more enemies of the people headlines dished out or will Patel threaten to politicize the court . The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the policy yet so they haven’t been over ruled.
Johnson knew the policy was likely to be caught up in legal challenges and wanted a fight with the ECHR so his plan has worked well . Then he dupes the plebs into greenlighting leaving the ECHR and they happily wave away their rights .
Americans see their own local state court overruled by the Supreme Court (federal) all the time on appeals.
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
People want an end to illegal immigration. It's as simple as that.
Those awarded asylum are not illegal immigrants: they are legal immigrants. The majority of those crossing by boat are granted asylum.
The vast majority of illegal immigrants do not come on boats. They fly in to the country and then overstay their visa.
If you want an end to illegal immigration, the boats are a minor side issue.
If you want to end the drownings and associated people smuggling, they're not a minor issue.
If people fly safely and legally into the country, and then overstay their visa, then they're doing so of their own volition and that's not involving either people smuggling or drowning at sea to do so.
Could there possibly be a better headline for Brexit supporters than this?
"Rwanda deportation flight blocked by European judges Asylum seekers win injunctions to remove them from the plane, just hours after a UK court had rejected their plea"
Johnson said he got Brexit done so for those who think the ECHR is an EU organization they’ll wonder why the judges are still involved .
The Supreme Court of the UK MUST be supreme. Americans would not tolerate, for a second, their Supreme Court being overruled by the Human Rights Court of the Americas, sitting in Mexico City
And nor should we tolerate the equivalent
It’s time to exit the ECHR. This is Why Brexit. Do it
What if the UK Supreme Court deems the Rwandan policy illegal . What then ? Will we see more enemies of the people headlines dished out or will Patel threaten to politicize the court . The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the policy yet so they haven’t been over ruled.
Johnson knew the policy was likely to be caught up in legal challenges and wanted a fight with the ECHR so his plan has worked well . Then he dupes the plebs into greenlighting leaving the ECHR and they happily wave away their rights .
Americans see their own local state court overruled by the Supreme Court (federal) all the time on appeals.
Because Americans are part of a country called the United States of America and have elections to the federal Congress and Presidency that appoints those justices.
The UK's Supreme Court should be answerable to Parliament and nothing else, the UK is not a state within a federation that we are having elections to.
Could there possibly be a better headline for Brexit supporters than this?
"Rwanda deportation flight blocked by European judges Asylum seekers win injunctions to remove them from the plane, just hours after a UK court had rejected their plea"
Johnson said he got Brexit done so for those who think the ECHR is an EU organization they’ll wonder why the judges are still involved .
The Supreme Court of the UK MUST be supreme. Americans would not tolerate, for a second, their Supreme Court being overruled by the Human Rights Court of the Americas, sitting in Mexico City
And nor should we tolerate the equivalent
It’s time to exit the ECHR. This is Why Brexit. Do it
What if the UK Supreme Court deems the Rwandan policy illegal . What then ? Will we see more enemies of the people headlines dished out or will Patel threaten to politicize the court . The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the policy yet so they haven’t been over ruled.
Johnson knew the policy was likely to be caught up in legal challenges and wanted a fight with the ECHR so his plan has worked well . Then he dupes the plebs into greenlighting leaving the ECHR and they happily wave away their rights .
If a UK Supreme Court blocks a government policy that’s fine by me. That’s democracy working. Even if it is lefty lawyers. You need judicial restraint on government.
What we don’t need any more is foreign judges, entirely unanswerable to the British people, sitting in a foreign court, and deciding what happens to British migration policy. Enough
Why are lawyers always deemed as lefties. Patel’s attacks on the judiciary have been disgraceful . If the Supreme Court finds against the government no doubt the right wing press will go after them but I appreciate that you’re willing to accept the Supreme Courts view even if you might disagree with that .
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
People want an end to illegal immigration. It's as simple as that.
Those awarded asylum are not illegal immigrants: they are legal immigrants. The majority of those crossing by boat are granted asylum.
The vast majority of illegal immigrants do not come on boats. They fly in to the country and then overstay their visa.
If you want an end to illegal immigration, the boats are a minor side issue.
If you want to end the drownings and associated people smuggling, they're not a minor issue.
If people fly safely and legally into the country, and then overstay their visa, then they're doing so of their own volition and that's not involving either people smuggling or drowning at sea to do so.
You see, what I do, BR, is I respond to what people say. Andy was talking about illegal immigration, so my response was about illegal immigration. If Andy had said something about drownings and people smuggling, I would have responded differently.
So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.
It hasn't happened yet, if it isn't happening it won't deter people.
If it does happen, then it will deter people.
Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.
The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
I supported you yesterday Barty, on NIP, but you posted there is ridiculous. The UK plan is not the same as Australian system, the Australian system didn’t work as well as you claim, and the problem the UK is facing on illegal migration is different.
At least concede those three points, before building a case in favour.
The Australian system did work as well as I claim, there hasn't been a single death by drowning from illegal boat crossings since the system was put in place. That is an incredible achievement, if we could achieve the same in the UK then great.
The plan is not the same, but it could be, if implemented properly. But to work it means that virtually all irregular boat crossings end up in Rwanda, which would halt the irregular boat crossings, rather than none of them or an inconsequential proportion of them.
Stu from Romford just explained it better than I can why this cannot work here. In fact a lot of people have, and in a way they are actually trying to help the people who arn’t listening, like the stuff you are posting. We arn’t trying to hurt anyone or play politics here, we are just trying to get the Penny to drop for you, don’t use Oz as example to the success this could be.
I’ll have one more go. A cold shower of the raw stats.
3,127 people were sent to Papua New Guinea/ Nauru since 2013 at cost to Australian taxpayer of AUS$10 billion. £1.7m per person.
Last year, 28,526 crossed the channel in small boats.
Patel herself has pointed out the two schemes are not the same. Ours isn’t offshore processing to prevent a trip, ours is old school colonialism to deter a trip.
How do you see this changing peoples minds about coming here? Do you really genuinely believe it will make any great number pause and rethink?
FFS the numbers since 2013 are diminished by the fact that the crossings all-but stopped after the policy came into force, because the policy worked. What part of that are you struggling to understand?
The figures to look at for the policy aren't the post-2013 stats, they're the pre-2013 ones as that shows what has been deterred. In 2012 over 17 thousand people crossed by boat there, a number comparable to the numbers crossing the Channel.
AUD$1billion per annum since then is an absolute bargain, compared to the estimated £1.5bn the UK is spending today and if you divide it "per person" with the 2012 figure of 17,000 then it isn't £1.7m per person, it is AUD$55,823 per person or GBP £33.7k per person. £33k per person deterred is a very different figure compared to the current costs.
And you think, given a chance this will change minds and act as a deterrent?
And it doesn’t have whiff of the same colonialism to you as the colonial stench around Putin these days?
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
Could there possibly be a better headline for Brexit supporters than this?
"Rwanda deportation flight blocked by European judges Asylum seekers win injunctions to remove them from the plane, just hours after a UK court had rejected their plea"
Johnson said he got Brexit done so for those who think the ECHR is an EU organization they’ll wonder why the judges are still involved .
The Supreme Court of the UK MUST be supreme. Americans would not tolerate, for a second, their Supreme Court being overruled by the Human Rights Court of the Americas, sitting in Mexico City
And nor should we tolerate the equivalent
It’s time to exit the ECHR. This is Why Brexit. Do it
What if the UK Supreme Court deems the Rwandan policy illegal . What then ? Will we see more enemies of the people headlines dished out or will Patel threaten to politicize the court . The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the policy yet so they haven’t been over ruled.
Johnson knew the policy was likely to be caught up in legal challenges and wanted a fight with the ECHR so his plan has worked well . Then he dupes the plebs into greenlighting leaving the ECHR and they happily wave away their rights .
Americans see their own local state court overruled by the Supreme Court (federal) all the time on appeals.
Because Americans are part of a country called the United States of America and have elections to the federal Congress and Presidency that appoints those justices.
The UK's Supreme Court should be answerable to Parliament and nothing else, the UK is not a state within a federation that we are having elections to.
First off, do you understand how the law works? The UK Supreme Court bases its decisions in part on common law principles that are unrelated to legislation passed by Parliament.
Secondly, the UK Supreme Court also bases its decisions on international treaties entered into by the executive. Are you saying all such treaties should be subject to a vote in Parliament in future? Because that would be a major constitutional change.
Could there possibly be a better headline for Brexit supporters than this?
"Rwanda deportation flight blocked by European judges Asylum seekers win injunctions to remove them from the plane, just hours after a UK court had rejected their plea"
Johnson said he got Brexit done so for those who think the ECHR is an EU organization they’ll wonder why the judges are still involved .
The Supreme Court of the UK MUST be supreme. Americans would not tolerate, for a second, their Supreme Court being overruled by the Human Rights Court of the Americas, sitting in Mexico City
And nor should we tolerate the equivalent
It’s time to exit the ECHR. This is Why Brexit. Do it
What if the UK Supreme Court deems the Rwandan policy illegal . What then ? Will we see more enemies of the people headlines dished out or will Patel threaten to politicize the court .
The answer to both is yes. Even though as you point out headlines generated by legal challenges (successful or not) was probably part of the strategy on this issue, respect for other institutions gets dropped right quick when it is in a government's way. Especially when a party has been in power a long time.
It already put in the manifesto a warning shot about the relationship between government and the courts, and there were immediate calls to politicise the appointment of Supreme Court judges when the prorogation decision occurred. Including the rather odd view that they must all have been remainers, even the ones who had sided with the government in the Article 50 decision.
So just to confirm, the Mail has confirmed Rwanda doesn’t deter people. Okay then.
It hasn't happened yet, if it isn't happening it won't deter people.
If it does happen, then it will deter people.
Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.
The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
I supported you yesterday Barty, on NIP, but you posted there is ridiculous. The UK plan is not the same as Australian system, the Australian system didn’t work as well as you claim, and the problem the UK is facing on illegal migration is different.
At least concede those three points, before building a case in favour.
The Australian system did work as well as I claim, there hasn't been a single death by drowning from illegal boat crossings since the system was put in place. That is an incredible achievement, if we could achieve the same in the UK then great.
The plan is not the same, but it could be, if implemented properly. But to work it means that virtually all irregular boat crossings end up in Rwanda, which would halt the irregular boat crossings, rather than none of them or an inconsequential proportion of them.
Stu from Romford just explained it better than I can why this cannot work here. In fact a lot of people have, and in a way they are actually trying to help the people who arn’t listening, like the stuff you are posting. We arn’t trying to hurt anyone or play politics here, we are just trying to get the Penny to drop for you, don’t use Oz as example to the success this could be.
I’ll have one more go. A cold shower of the raw stats.
3,127 people were sent to Papua New Guinea/ Nauru since 2013 at cost to Australian taxpayer of AUS$10 billion. £1.7m per person.
Last year, 28,526 crossed the channel in small boats.
Patel herself has pointed out the two schemes are not the same. Ours isn’t offshore processing to prevent a trip, ours is old school colonialism to deter a trip.
How do you see this changing peoples minds about coming here? Do you really genuinely believe it will make any great number pause and rethink?
FFS the numbers since 2013 are diminished by the fact that the crossings all-but stopped after the policy came into force, because the policy worked. What part of that are you struggling to understand?
The figures to look at for the policy aren't the post-2013 stats, they're the pre-2013 ones as that shows what has been deterred. In 2012 over 17 thousand people crossed by boat there, a number comparable to the numbers crossing the Channel.
AUD$1billion per annum since then is an absolute bargain, compared to the estimated £1.5bn the UK is spending today and if you divide it "per person" with the 2012 figure of 17,000 then it isn't £1.7m per person, it is AUD$55,823 per person or GBP £33.7k per person. £33k per person deterred is a very different figure compared to the current costs.
And you think, given a chance this will change minds and act as a deterrent?
Of course.
In 2013 the Australian government said everyone who crossed by water like that would be sent offshore. They were having over 17k such crossings in 2012, from 2013 onwards only 3k have needed to be sent offshore in a decade, because the crossings stopped or voluntarily turned around rather than ending up offshore.
People won't want to cross the water to end up in Rwanda. If people picked up in the water or who land on the shore are sent immediately and automatically to Rwanda then nobody would cross by water anymore and the drownings would end, and next to nobody would need to go to Rwanda, because next to nobody would be crossing the water.
Could there possibly be a better headline for Brexit supporters than this?
"Rwanda deportation flight blocked by European judges Asylum seekers win injunctions to remove them from the plane, just hours after a UK court had rejected their plea"
Johnson said he got Brexit done so for those who think the ECHR is an EU organization they’ll wonder why the judges are still involved .
The Supreme Court of the UK MUST be supreme. Americans would not tolerate, for a second, their Supreme Court being overruled by the Human Rights Court of the Americas, sitting in Mexico City
And nor should we tolerate the equivalent
It’s time to exit the ECHR. This is Why Brexit. Do it
What if the UK Supreme Court deems the Rwandan policy illegal . What then ? Will we see more enemies of the people headlines dished out or will Patel threaten to politicize the court . The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the policy yet so they haven’t been over ruled.
Johnson knew the policy was likely to be caught up in legal challenges and wanted a fight with the ECHR so his plan has worked well . Then he dupes the plebs into greenlighting leaving the ECHR and they happily wave away their rights .
If a UK Supreme Court blocks a government policy that’s fine by me. That’s democracy working. Even if it is lefty lawyers. You need judicial restraint on government.
What we don’t need any more is foreign judges, entirely unanswerable to the British people, sitting in a foreign court, and deciding what happens to British migration policy. Enough
Why are lawyers always deemed as lefties. Patel’s attacks on the judiciary have been disgraceful . If the Supreme Court finds against the government no doubt the right wing press will go after them but I appreciate that you’re willing to accept the Supreme Courts view even if you might disagree with that .
Of course I will accept the view of the SCOTUK. The UK has a world-renowned legal system, trusted by people across the globe. I may dislike some judgements, no doubt you do too, that’s life. But our legal system is answerable to our democracy, and vice versa, and that’s the crucial point
The ECHR is now a pointless foreign body that has inexcusable power over us. So we leave
I would agree with you on the grotesque distortions in global wealth. Part may be to do with us but a lot is to do with those countries’ regimes. So what should we do on that front? Re-colonise the world? Seriously, many countries are in a poor state because they have poor governments and often that is not down to the West. It gets forgotten but many countries in Africa have been independent longer than they were colonies. How long do you want to go on blaming the West?
I’d also agree with you about the artificial divide. I want a fair and just asylum policy that protects those who are being persecuted. But I go back to the question I asked you before - how many asylum groups have ever claimed that some people should be deported and ever agreed that a deportation is just? Seriously, I cannot think of one example.
OK, we're making some progress in dialogue. I agree that some poor countries have terrible governments that make the situation worse (and I'm not blaming the West for that - it's another strawman), and you'd probably agree that some have governments that are doing their best? - some would say Rwanda was one. I'd concentrate on (a) narrowing and reducing conflict where we can, not by picking sides and sending arms (Yemen, Iraq) or ignoring them (DRC, Colombia), but by making it profitable for both sides to settle: - "have a ceasefire and we'll aid you both" (b) aiding those countries that do have governments that seem likely to use the money effectively. Personally I'd live with helping these even if authoritarian (Rwanda again, and others like Ethiopia and Vietnam) - the aim is not to quickly create a South Saharan Switzerland but to help make the places less awful. Others may draw the line somewhere else.
I don't think groups set up to help asylum-seekers are likely to call for any deportations, but it's implicit in the arguments - "the process is unfair in case X because..." If their view was that all deportations were wrong regardless of facts (which as the case I mentioned show, is not the ECHR position), then it would be a distraction to argue that case X was special.
Might be worth a bet on the Tories retaining Wakefield
You think the good folk of Wakefield will feel more comfortable in their beds knowing four or five asylum seekers are going to be sent to Rwanda?
Yes - they will think at least BJ is trying to do something unlike Labour with their open door policy
Labour don’t have an open door policy. Why lie?
Boris is no idiot - Labour policy will be "an open door" which yu and I know isn't true but until Labour tells everyone what it is the thats what its going to be
But even though Labour says it doesn’t have one they still say it. So what is Labour supposed to do?
Emphasise:
1. The failure of the policy because it’s Ill thought out and fundamentally unserious 2. The waste of public resources on a gimmic when it could have been spent on the needs of hard pressed British voters
What is Labour's policy on immigration? until that is explained Boris will win because "at least he is trying to do something"
Wrong. And Big G repeated this same daft line of the governments earlier.
For years this government has had supporters and focus groups screaming at them to sort this out. They havn’t had a policy that will work. This still isn’t a working policy either, it’s a contrivance to disguise they havn’t a clue what works. It’s costs to the nation at this time are scary, wether it works depends on it acting like a deterrent - which every single one of us knows it won’t deter anyone.
If people wish to be in government they have to come up with working policys, not put this unworkable junk out there and say “we are trying to do something, suggest something that works then.”
It’s THEIR job to come up with something that works if they wish to remain in power. That’s how it’s always worked, and that’s how it’s working here.
Whilst you may be right again I repeat to the "average" voter BJ is seen to be doing something - The current asylum system is costing the taxpayer £1.5 billion a year, the highest amount in over two decades.
How long can you pretend you are getting somewhere with a problem before getting found out and your credibility comes crashing. This is why it didn’t go to commons vote, because the back benchers saw it wasn’t going to work and be expensive disaster so would have said no.
Boris doesn't have any credibility - he will keep on and on blaming other people such as Labour for its non-working
There will be only a certain amount of road in that approach. The truth is a non solution is all they have because they don’t as yet have a solution.
Sometimes, like the migrations during the industrial revolution, there is nothing you can do about what is happening, what peoples needs and wants are. The deterrent factor of this was never going to work, the UK this year is even more a flame calling the moths than it was last year and year before.
Good post - agree with it but until the Rwanda situation is given a chance to work and then shows that it doesn't work then Labour are on a hiding to nothing
The ECHR was set up after - and in reaction - to the horrors of WW2. It was thought important to safeguard rights and freedoms across the continent.
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
I don't hold institutions or established frameworks as sacred in any way, but other than cheap political gains I don't really see the significant benefits from taking such severe choices. It seems disproportionate to any perceived goals.
Possibly because having the first war in Europe since World War Two is regarded as exceptional?
This is tangential to the point you were making, but can we stop calling it the first war in Europe since World War Two? What of the Slovenian War of Independence, the Croatian War of Independence, the Bosnian War, the Kosovo War, the Greek Civil War, the Cyprus Emergency, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the Transnistria War and the Albanian Civil War?
Unless I'm mistaken all of those are Civil wars (which are anything but civil).
Apart from the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, which wasn't a significant war, unless I'm mistaken this is the first significant war of aggression to try to change borders as opposed to a civil war.
Perhaps a distinction without a difference to the victims of the other wars, but still significant.
You didn't say first war between two nations that were separate at the start of the conflict. Civil wars are still wars. Most of those civil wars changed borders. Most of them involved outside parties as well.
The Turkish invasion of Cyprus involved about 75000 troops, and maybe up to 10000 casualties. It fundamentally altered the geopolitical situation in Cyrpus. Over 200,000 people were displaced. It was a significant war. It was over relatively quickly, about a month, as Turkey achieved the sort of military victory Putin thought he would.
I don't wish in any way to minimise the significance of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but I think we forget history too easily.
Comments
Sadly it also shows that its salience correlates almost perfectly with the amount of press coverage of it as an issue. Far more than with the actual net migration numbers.
This stuff is just stupid. But, sadly, effective. Good politics relies on politicians resisting the urge to indulge their voters’ basest human instincts.
Becuse the alternative is too depressing.
That may be naive. But it's important for my mental health.
Of course my comment is very close to the bone and politically incorrect !
Personally I don’t give a fig where people come from as long as they’re law abiding citizens but would leave have won if they stuck that on the side of a bus !
As for the latest attempt to dupe the plebs into cheering on the UK leaving the ECHR unfortunately nuance isn’t something low information voters think of .
Rights are there to protect everyone even those we don’t think much of !
Of course the right wing hate press will ignore the fact that one of the UKs heroes for many, Churchill was instrumental in the formation of the ECHR .
It would send a terrible message to the world if the UK pulled out but there are no red lines when it comes to Johnson trying to save his own skin . Divide and rule is all this government knows .
I’d also agree with you about the artificial divide. I want a fair and just asylum policy that protects those who are being persecuted. But I go back to the question I asked you before - how many asylum groups have ever claimed that some people should be deported and ever agreed that a deportation is just? Seriously, I cannot think of one example.
Almost every paper has word 'Rwanda' in big letters on front page.
Grim.
But this is what Starmer's Labour is up against. Brutal. No prisoners. Nothing too low.
How should they respond?
Can they take gloves off?
1. The failure of the policy because it’s Ill thought out and fundamentally unserious
2. The waste of public resources on a gimmic when it could have been spent on the needs of hard pressed British voters
Have you applied for a job or rented a flat recently? Or claimed any benefits?
Or opened a bank account?
About the only half-convincing reason I can think of is that we can be sure most will wish to return when the war is over. Is that true of the boat arrivals?
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/
Does your aversion to carrying ID prevent that?
If it does happen, then it will deter people.
Absolutely the policy will 100% work if it is allowed to work. It worked in Australia, after spates of drownings at sea due to illegal crossings, this policy has had a 100% success record in ensuring there hasn't been even a single death due to illegal migration crossings in Australian waters in the past decade. Something that can't remotely be said in this country.
The policy is deeply unpleasant, but so too is people smuggling and people drowning at sea, so you need to pick your poison. The Australian Labor Party implements this policy quite successfully because it works and it saves lives.
Bring up the cost of living. And the lack of services. Anywhere and everywhere.
Labour need to wake up. This is what the next GE will be like. This week or so has been a dry run. Johnson will have something so wedgy and so popularist and so tabloidy that it will totally dominate the second or third week of the GE campaign and NOTHING that Labour have on their grid will get a moment.
I am not sure Starmer is the man for this cage fight.
I'm musing out loud now after a couple at the pub, but...
Maybe Wes Streeting is the only one up for this level of friction?
Or Pat McFadden?
Who is Labour's Crosby?
Next GE will be a bloodbath of dirt. Johnson will throw everything at winning.
The war in Ukraine, which Trump's mate Putin started and Trump called "genius"?
Or the pandemic and its aftermath, which started before Biden came to the Oval Office?
Or possibly for the same reason Remainers were happy to have free movement with European countries but not the rest of the world?
Ideally Labour need someone with a sunny and optimistic disposition who can charm the voters, like Blair. Starmer isn’t that person but he may be able to grind out a messy artillery stalemate that gets him into no 10 with Lib Dem support.
For years this government has had supporters and focus groups screaming at them to sort this out. They havn’t had a policy that will work. This still isn’t a working policy either, it’s a contrivance to disguise they havn’t a clue what works. It’s costs to the nation at this time are scary, wether it works depends on it acting like a deterrent - which every single one of us knows it won’t deter anyone.
If people wish to be in government they have to come up with working policys, not put this unworkable junk out there and say “we are trying to do something, suggest something that works then.”
It’s THEIR job to come up with something that works if they wish to remain in power. That’s how it’s always worked, and that’s how it’s working here.
We've spent many millions on processing and the French already. That's a futile black hole already.
No idea what that meant. Googled. Hmm
😮
"Rwanda deportation flight blocked by European judges
Asylum seekers win injunctions to remove them from the plane, just hours after a UK court had rejected their plea"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/14/rwanda-deportation-flight-blocked-european-judges/
At least concede those three points, before building a case in favour.
A universal rhetorical device: do something that doesn’t work, then shift the pressure on to the opponent by demanding they have a better idea, while rubbishing everything they do suggest.
Why did I vote to leave?*
And nor should we tolerate the equivalent
It’s time to exit the ECHR. This is Why Brexit. Do it
Scrape over the line.
Most of Labour seem to hate Blair but boy do they need someone like him now.
Apart from the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, which wasn't a significant war, unless I'm mistaken this is the first significant war of aggression to try to change borders as opposed to a civil war.
Perhaps a distinction without a difference to the victims of the other wars, but still significant.
There are goodish reasons to think that, even if the legal SNAFUs get sorted this policy is not going to succeed in its aim. In particular, it's too easily overwhelmed by sheer numbers. Today's plane, even if it had been full, was less than today's boat people. That's the farcial element.
Johnson and co get good headlines today- they had this brilliant idea, rotten lefty lawyers stopped it, but they will be overcome. Fine. Today. But then what? Either the government picks a fight with the lawyers and loses (bad), or worse still- the government wins. Because then they have no excuse not to run this... and the damn thing still won't work. And then what?
The plan is not the same, but it could be, if implemented properly. But to work it means that virtually all irregular boat crossings end up in Rwanda, which would halt the irregular boat crossings, rather than none of them or an inconsequential proportion of them.
If all boat crossings get told they're going to Rwanda, then the number of people going to Rwanda will be next-to-zero since the boat crossings would stop almost overnight. That is precisely what happened in Australia, they said in 2013 that everyone would end up offshore if they crossed via boat, as a result the boat crossings dropped from tens of thousands to virtually zero in comparison, so nearly nobody had to be offshored from 2014 onwards because nearly nobody were crossing anymore.
Civilised common law nations around the world don't need the ECHR, while the ECHR didn't stop Vladimir Putin who led Russia as an ECHR member for nearly a quarter of a century. The ECHR might have been a good idea post-war, but its an idea whose time has come and gone, a failed experiment.
Johnson knew the policy was likely to be caught up in legal challenges and wanted a fight with the ECHR so his plan has worked well . Then he dupes the plebs into greenlighting leaving the ECHR and they happily wave away their rights .
Because the EU has spent decades deliberately blurring the divide between them, so as to create a European legal identity, and much else
eg I challenge anyone to read this website and successfully disentangle the participants: EU, ECHR, Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, and so on
https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/implementing-echr-judgments-latest-decisions-from-committee-of-ministe-1
Let’s just drop it all. Junk it
I’ll have one more go. A cold shower of the raw stats.
3,127 people were sent to Papua New Guinea/ Nauru since 2013 at cost to Australian taxpayer of AUS$10 billion. £1.7m per person.
Last year, 28,526 crossed the channel in small boats.
Patel herself has pointed out the two schemes are not the same. Ours isn’t offshore processing to prevent a trip, ours is old school colonialism to deter a trip.
How do you see this changing peoples minds about coming here? Do you really genuinely believe it will make any great number pause and rethink?
The Turkish invasion of Cyprus involved about 75000 troops, and maybe up to 10000 casualties. It fundamentally altered the geopolitical situation in Cyrpus. Over 200,000 people were displaced. It was a significant war. It was over relatively quickly, about a month, as Turkey achieved the sort of military victory Putin thought he would.
I don't wish in any way to minimise the significance of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but I think we forget history too easily.
The ECHR can bind the hands of Parliament, adds nothing to our prosperity, makes us less secure by preventing the deportation of dangerous foreign nationals – and does nothing to change the attitudes of governments like Russia’s when it comes to human rights. So regardless of the EU referendum, my view is this. If we want to reform human rights laws in this country, it isn’t the EU we should leave but the ECHR and the jurisdiction of its Court.
I can already hear certain people saying this means I’m against human rights. But human rights were not invented in 1950, when the Convention was drafted, or in 1998, when it was incorporated into our law through the Human Rights Act. This is Great Britain – the country of Magna Carta, Parliamentary democracy and the fairest courts in the world – and we can protect human rights ourselves in a way that doesn’t jeopardise national security or bind the hands of Parliament. A true British Bill of Rights – decided by Parliament and amended by Parliament – would protect not only the rights set out in the Convention but could include traditional British rights not protected by the ECHR, such as the right to trial by jury.
https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/04/theresa-mays-speech-on-brexit-full-text.html
What we don’t need any more is foreign judges, entirely unanswerable to the British people, sitting in a foreign court, and deciding what happens to British migration policy. Enough
Even for the problems it would allegedly solve, it would create additional potential problems and other means could be attempted to solve the problem.
The vast majority of illegal immigrants do not come on boats. They fly in to the country and then overstay their visa.
If you want an end to illegal immigration, the boats are a minor side issue.
The figures to look at for the policy aren't the post-2013 stats, they're the pre-2013 ones as that shows what has been deterred. In 2012 over 17 thousand people crossed by boat there, a number comparable to the numbers crossing the Channel.
AUD$1billion per annum since then is an absolute bargain, compared to the estimated £1.5bn the UK is spending today and if you divide it "per person" with the 2012 figure of 17,000 then it isn't £1.7m per person, it is AUD$55,823 per person or GBP £33.7k per person. £33k per person deterred is a very different figure compared to the current costs.
Sometimes, like the migrations during the industrial revolution, there is nothing you can do about what is happening, what peoples needs and wants are. The deterrent factor of this was never going to work, the UK this year is even more a flame calling the moths than it was last year and year before.
If people fly safely and legally into the country, and then overstay their visa, then they're doing so of their own volition and that's not involving either people smuggling or drowning at sea to do so.
The UK's Supreme Court should be answerable to Parliament and nothing else, the UK is not a state within a federation that we are having elections to.
And it doesn’t have whiff of the same colonialism to you as the colonial stench around Putin these days?
Although it’s possible to point at specific gripes (like the right of prisoners to vote, although why this should be so unconscionable I don’t know), or suggest that it has “achieved nothing” in Russia, it is one of the pillars of the liberal European settlement along with the EU and NATO.
Britain could leave the ECHR of course, presumably in favour of a British Bill of Rights, but it would be another abnegation of the overall liberal order and attempts to maintain that in our neighbourhood.
Secondly, the UK Supreme Court also bases its decisions on international treaties entered into by the executive. Are you saying all such treaties should be subject to a vote in Parliament in future? Because that would be a major constitutional change.
It already put in the manifesto a warning shot about the relationship between government and the courts, and there were immediate calls to politicise the appointment of Supreme Court judges when the prorogation decision occurred. Including the rather odd view that they must all have been remainers, even the ones who had sided with the government in the Article 50 decision.
In 2013 the Australian government said everyone who crossed by water like that would be sent offshore. They were having over 17k such crossings in 2012, from 2013 onwards only 3k have needed to be sent offshore in a decade, because the crossings stopped or voluntarily turned around rather than ending up offshore.
People won't want to cross the water to end up in Rwanda. If people picked up in the water or who land on the shore are sent immediately and automatically to Rwanda then nobody would cross by water anymore and the drownings would end, and next to nobody would need to go to Rwanda, because next to nobody would be crossing the water.
The ECHR is now a pointless foreign body that has inexcusable power over us. So we leave
I don't think groups set up to help asylum-seekers are likely to call for any deportations, but it's implicit in the arguments - "the process is unfair in case X because..." If their view was that all deportations were wrong regardless of facts (which as the case I mentioned show, is not the ECHR position), then it would be a distraction to argue that case X was special.
Interesting discussion, anyway. Good night!