Another thing I need explained to me, by you who know.
The Supreme judges say, although they are not actually against deportation to a safe country in principle they are against deportation to Rwanda as they are not trusted to actually not send them back to their country of origin ( where they may be tortured etc).
So why is Sunak, still pursuing a new treaty with Rwanda.
A new treaty would contain a guarantee from Rwanda that it would not send asylum seekers back to their country of origin. Thereafter, Parliament would designate Rwanda a "safe" country.
Speaking personally, if I was an economic migrant keen to get to a European country and had limited funds, if there was even a small chance of paying thousands to people smugglers and finding myself on a flight to Africa, I'd choose another European country
It doesn’t change anything Beth. Anyone threatened with being sent to Rwanda will have solicitors who will appeal, which will take months if not years, and the appeal will be upheld on the basis of the Supreme Court ruling, which explicitly says that despite the evident good faith of the Rwandan government, it cannot be guaranteed that asylum seekers will not be sent to the place they were fleeing from, whatever the Rwandans say. Passing a new law is a complete waste of time as far as I understand it and from what I have read.So we can just do this can we.
Even though there is fully documented proof that Israeli deportees to Rwanda uner a similar program were deported to other countries pretty quick ...( BBC report Oct 2022).
Can we, simply on a whim, declare other places safe to send them too...North Korea, Gaza Strip, Ukraine.
Solve a lot problems... but doesn't sound democratic...or essentially British does it
So we can just do this can we.
Even though there is fully documented proof that Israeli deportees to Rwanda uner a similar program were deported to other countries pretty quick ...( BBC report Oct 2022).
Can we, simply on a whim, declare other places safe to send them too...North Korea, Gaza Strip, Ukraine.
Solve a lot problems... but doesn't sound democratic...or essentially British does it
It doesn’t change anything Beth. Anyone threatened with being sent to Rwanda will have solicitors who will appeal, which will take months if not years, and the appeal will be upheld on the basis of the Supreme Court ruling, which explicitly says that despite the evident good faith of the Rwandan government, it cannot be guaranteed that asylum seekers will not be sent to the place they were fleeing from, whatever the Rwandans say. Passing a new law is a complete waste of time as far as I understand it and from what I have read.
Plenty of Rwandans are seeking asylum from the regime of Paul Kagame (got a surprising 99% of the vote at the last election, for his 3rd 7 year term, democracy in action). Perhaps some of them will seek asylum here, so we can send them to the ‘safe’ haven of Rwanda….oh hang on…
Of course if you are a fan of the charming Red Tory Lee Anderson your hatred of foreigners will be such that you will agree that a new law is unnecessary, and that anyone who arrives here on a boat should be put immediately on a plane to Rwanda (or, I’m guessing, direct to your grave, for all he cares).
Meanwhile Starmer gets a bloody nose from his own team on Gaza. Good. Spineless twat.
I don’t vote because I don’t like this version of democracy. I don’t expect it to change because I don’t like it. But even fans of the system must be, like Uber, at their wits end about who to vote for next time.
I find myself moving towards some form of PR as I get older. Wouldn’t say I’m a huge fan of it, but think some sort of change is needed in order to give some people a voice across the political spectrum.
33 days after I voted in the last election we still have no government as the party that won 6% of the vote hasn't come to an agreement with the other two parties that need them for a majorityI find myself moving towards some form of PR as I get older. Wouldn’t say I’m a huge fan of it, but think some sort of change is needed in order to give some people a voice across the political spectrum.
It doesn’t change anything Beth. Anyone threatened with being sent to Rwanda will have solicitors who will appeal, which will take months if not years, and the appeal will be upheld on the basis of the Supreme Court ruling, which explicitly says that despite the evident good faith of the Rwandan government, it cannot be guaranteed that asylum seekers will not be sent to the place they were fleeing from, whatever the Rwandans say. Passing a new law is a complete waste of time as far as I understand it and from what I have read.
Plenty of Rwandans are seeking asylum from the regime of Paul Kagame (got a surprising 99% of the vote at the last election, for his 3rd 7 year term, democracy in action). Perhaps some of them will seek asylum here, so we can send them to the ‘safe’ haven of Rwanda….oh hang on…
Of course if you are a fan of the charming Red Tory Lee Anderson your hatred of foreigners will be such that you will agree that a new law is unnecessary, and that anyone who arrives here on a boat should be put immediately on a plane to Rwanda (or, I’m guessing, direct to your grave, for all he cares).
Meanwhile Starmer gets a bloody nose from his own team on Gaza. Good. Spineless twat.
I don’t vote because I don’t like this version of democracy. I don’t expect it to change because I don’t like it. But even fans of the system must be, like Uber, at their wits end about who to vote for next time.
There's no one to vote for.
We're increasingly being governed by lawyers anyway.