You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The only thing I'm determined about is opposition to the mistreatment of refugees and asylum seekers.
The Australian government's treatment of asylum seekers has been widely condemned. The fact that it might not as bad as another country is irrelevant to me.
Everyone who has posted on here is opposed to the mistreatment of asylum seekers. I suppose it’s good to hear that you are too? Are you also in favour of bears shitting in woods/popes having balconies? Equally as important points to make.
The Australian government’s treatment of asylum seekers has been widely condemned. The fact that it might not as bad as another country is irrelevant to me.
Now you’re just being pointlessly argumentative. The point that I made was that the tories plan was EVEN WORSE than the Australian one (which has been widely condemned) as an illustration of how bad it is, not to diminish how appalling the Australian policy is/was
Yeah everyone on here is opposed to the mistreatment of asylum seekers only some people appear to be selective about their opposition.
I've learnt from this thread that apparently Priti Patel's proposal to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is a pointless and appalling exercise but the EU's proposal to send asylum seekers to Rwanda is a well thought out and good idea.
You are entitled to your opinion that what the UK is proposing is worse than Australia's treatment of refugees and asylum seekers but equally I am entitled not to agree with that claim. The fact Priti Patel has sought the advice of a former senior Australian government minister doesn't for me suggest that it will be significantly worse.
Apologies for having a different opinion but if you want a thread where people mostly just agree with the previous poster I would suggest the Boris Johnson thread.
Jesus wept.
The issue is not that you have a different opinion, it’s that you just seem to be flailing about desperately trying to find something to argue about, and in doing so are casting the rest of us as immigrant hating bastards.
The fact Priti Patel has sought the advice of a former senior Australian government minister doesn’t for me suggest that it will be significantly worse.
What does that even mean? Who has said that - certainly not me - who are you arguing with?
The reason that the uks proposed “solution” is even worse than the appalling Australian one is clear to anyone. Feel free to hold the opposite opinion if you like
Feel free to hold the opposite opinion if you like
Thanks.
To be honest I don’t think it matters what Boris’s plan is. Im quite sure that enough illegal immigrants to fill a plane up have arrived since the policy took effect and there hasn’t been a single flight to Rwanda yet or it would have been headline news
It is a sad state of affairs when the only thing stopping this government's appalling policies from being put into place is their stunning incompetence.
You assume they ever intend to implement it and it wasnt just a party gate smokescreen For the gamons
a party gate smokescreen For the gamons
thats what I think too… I suspect that it had been suggested previously in some kind of hellish Alan partridge style Tory brainstorming session where they were trying to think of things that would get all the boomers frothed-up pre-election, and they just grabbed it on the way out the door to the press conference, like somebody desperately buying carnations and an air-freshener from the Esso on their way home from work on Valentine’s Day
It's so obviously illegal and unworkable that the only plausible explanation for the "policy announcement" was to whip up a culture war, presumably with the intention of getting the gammon base out to vote in May.
"Look at the activist judges and woke lefties stopping us from undertaking The Will Of The People™."
I had hoped that this was yet another distraction announcement at the beginning. However, there’s been an announcement this evening that “removals” to Rwanda will begin in a couple of weeks.
I’m so proud to be English.
No one will ever be sent there as the courts will stop them it being clearly illegal under international law
Almost no chance of anyone being removed on that flight. There will be numerous challenges by judicial review and since this is uncharted territory (removal to a third country which the migrant hasn't passed through), it will need to be thrashed out in the courts which will take months, possibly over a year, and will likely end up with the high court/court of appeal.
Yup, Denmark still hasn't managed to relocate refugees overseas despite passing a law to do so almost exactly one year ago :
Although they appear to be getting round that by simply deporting them back to the war zone which they fled from :
Denmark’s policy towards asylum seekers and refugees has become notably more hostile in recent years. “In 2019, the Danish prime minister declared that Denmark wanted ‘zero asylum seekers’. That was a really strong signal,” she says.
“Like in other European countries, there has been a lot of support for rightwing parties in Denmark. This has sent a strong signal for the government to say: ‘OK, Denmark will not be a welcoming country for refugees or asylum seekers.’”
Makes you proud to be European.
I can't say this makes me very comfortable but otoh I recognise that the landscape has changed vastly since the aftermath of WW2 when these rules of asylum and refugees were drafted.
We have, and it will only get worse, an almost unlimited pool of people from the developing world who would like to move to the UK, and modern transport provides an easy means to do this. These people are at complete liberty to move here under the status of 'asylum seekers', and the bar for what constitutes a refugee has lowered beyond all reasonable measure. It's possible, for example, to get asylum in the UK because you had an abusive boyfriend in Serbia, or because you claim to have run foul of gangs in South America, or because you want to live a rainbow lifestyle, or because you don't want to do national service somewhere.
I think we can all recognise that people fleeing Ukraine or Syria are refugees under a common-sense understanding. These other people not so much, and this abuse of the system has caused a kind of empathy fatigue vis a vis the former.
Yes, proud to be English.
Jeepers I scoff cake - your reality is odd. ~thats nothing like the truth and most refugees do not even make it to europe
But we created many of them by bombing the shit out of their countries or giving bombs to people to bomb the shit out of their countries
It’s possible, for example, to get asylum in the UK because you had an abusive boyfriend in Serbia,
citation please because this is very far fetched indeed
My immediate reaction to this announcement of the first group being sent to Rwanda was that it was a dead cat to distract from the growing pressure on the PM - if it happens, the gammon idiots will lap it up, if it gets blocked by the courts, the gammon idiots will lap it up.
But we created many of them by bombing the shit out of their countries or giving bombs to people to bomb the shit out of their countries
Precisely this. It is a problem which has mostly arisen in the last twenty years. There were not overcrowded dinghies crossing the Channel or refugee camps in Calais thirty or forty years ago, despite plenty of people living in the 'developing world'.
i_scoff_cake
Free MemberIt’s possible, for example, to get asylum in the UK because you had an abusive boyfriend in Serbia
You are Theresa May and I claim my 5 euros. I'm sure you'll have an example of this, right?
You also mentioned national service, but as you're probably aware it's far more limited than that- you can't claim asylum just because you've been called up for national service.
But we created many of them by bombing the shit out of their countries
For Jan 2021, the UNHCRs own figures show that the top three national groups crossing the med were Tunianian, Egyptian and Bangladesh.
Crossing the Med to get to the UK?
Geography not your strong point labrat?
Mostly people from Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine claiming asylum in the UK. All war zones.
"In 2020, the top five most common countries of nationality of people seeking asylum in the UK were Iran, Iraq, Albania, Eritrea, and Sudan"
Ah, I see. Your thesis is not that our 'bombing' has contributed to a general increase in 'refugees' but only an increase in the ones wanting to get into the UK?
In 2020, the top five most common countries of nationality of people seeking asylum in the UK were Iran, Iraq, Albania, Eritrea, and Sudan
It’s not 2020 now. Most of those countries had people fleeing for good reason.
a general increase in ‘refugees’
Most refugees (I thought we were talking about asylum seekers, but hey) are hosted by countries neighbouring the countries they have had to leave (or indeed within a different area of the same country).
@kelvin Refugees hosted in places like Turkey do not have leave to remain. They are strictly hosted until they can be sent back.
As for your other point, apart from Iraq, there isn't a strong link between asylum applications to the UK and 'our bombing', but don't let the facts spoil a juvenile narrative.
Refugees, yes. Asylum seekers are only a very small proportion of those, and they do process asylum cases and give asylum to many of the applicants.
I didn’t make a case about “our bombing”, only that war is overwhelmingly the main reason for people currently claiming asylum in the UK right now. Blame who you want for the wars, but people flee war zones for good reason.
Sorry mate I can't be bothered to engage. I will leave it to others, if they feel so inclined.
Blame who you want for the wars, but people flee war zones for good reason.
I think we can both agree that Ukraine is (at least in part) a war zone, for example, but somewhere like Afghanistan not so much. There are hundreds of armed conflicts worldwide but this doesn't also mean they are warzones. By many standards the Left seem to apply, the UK of the 1990s was a 'warzone' because of the IRA's mainland bombing campaign. Indeed, I even hear the same people saying that African-Americans should be entitled to asylum in the UK!
There are hundreds of armed conflicts worldwide but this doesn’t also mean they are warzones
This makes no sense at all. Armed conflicts occurring but not warzones? Weird analysis
Armed conflicts occurring but not warzones?
Works for Boris:
There are no war zones
If there are war zones I didn't know they were war zones.
I didn't help create any of these war zones that don't exist
Etc
@tjagain if you read what I wrote I mentioned Northern Ireland and the IRA. By your logic just because there is an armed conflict there is a 'war zone'. Would you have said the UK in the 1990's was a 'war zone'? There was nevertheless an armed conflict between the IRA and the British state.
I don't think this has been reported much in the British media/newspapers:
https://www.rte.ie/news/uk/2022/0610/1304121-uk-rwanda-deportation/
Lawyers for the claimants said that Home Secretary Priti Patel's interior ministry had even claimed endorsement for the plan from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
But the UN agency's lawyer Laura Dubinsky said it "in no way endorses the UK-Rwandan arrangement".
"UNHCR is not involved in the UK-Rwanda arrangement, despite assertions to the contrary made by the secretary of state," she told the court.
Ms Dubinsky said the would-be refugees were at risk of "serious, irreparable harm" if sent to Rwanda, and that the UN had "serious concerns about Rwandan capacity".
The worst thing about it all is that's it's all so **** predictible.
Crace had a good summary in his sketch this week: the governments only has 2 actual policies & both break the law (NIP legislation being tabled on Monday)
The high Court has just given the go ahead.
How long till the first death/ rape then a huge settlement being made and the inhuman scheme being scrapped?
Absolute ****s.
The high Court has just given the go ahead.
Appeal to be heard on Monday so certainly not a given that flights will go ahead
How long till the first death/ rape then a huge settlement being made ....
Surely part of the appeal of deporting them to another country is that they will be outside the jurisdiction of the UK's legal system?
Similar to the United States sending prisoners which they wanted to treat in a totally illegal manner under US law to Guantanamo Bay. The US government didn't send prisoners to Guantanamo Bay because they thought they would enjoy the sunshine and fresh sea air, it was to deny them their legal rights.
No one will ever be sent there as the courts will stop them it being clearly illegal under international law
That aged well 🙁
Well, I hope they've all got their yellow fever shots. Need them a couple of weeks before travelling.
I'm sure we have an efficient and caring system for delivering the necessary vaccinations in time...
They might fall out of the UK's legal system, but if they are subsequently raped, killed in Rwanda having been sent there against international law I am pretty sure a civil case against the UK government would proceed successfully in the UK
To I_scoff_cake ; By many standards the Left seem to apply, the UK of the 1990s was a ‘warzone’ because of the IRA’s mainland bombing campaign. Indeed, I even hear the same people saying that African-Americans should be entitled to asylum in the UK
I am pretty sure that some people from Northern Ireland would have been able to claim asylum elsewhere as it definitely wasn't safe for them during the troubles. But the other bit I am thinking that you're spicing up to suit your rather obvious agenda. You should practice a bit before trying again
having been sent there against international law
So a UK judge can rule in favour of a deportation which violates international law?
Or is Justice Swift leaving it to the Appeal Court judges to decide on Monday whether it violates international law?
The UNHCR appears confident that the deportations are against international law so I don't understand how a UK judge can therefore allow it.
I'm horrified by the policy and surprised at the outcome.
How does international law get applied in UK courts? Possibly if not enshrined in UK legislation only an international court can enforcement it?
So a UK judge can rule in favour of a deportation which violates international law?
Apparently, he hasn't ruled on this, he came to the conclusion that there was no short term risk to the relevant individuals and they could be brought back if it was later found that they had been sent there illegally. That said, the UNHCR aren't the arbiters of international law.
Or is Justice Swift leaving it to the Appeal Court judges to decide on Monday whether it violates international law?
No they will address the narrower question, the question of illegality will be dealt with later.
How does international law get applied in UK courts? Possibly if not enshrined in UK legislation only an international court can enforcement it?
UK courts interpret the agreements that the UK has signed and will give effect to the rights created therein, rights under treaties take precedence over UK legislation. In many cases there is no relevant international court and enforcing international law by International Courts isn't really a thing anyway.
@i_scoff_cake Are you a Russian bot?
Nah he’s just feels threatened by dilution of the British way of life, and he’s broken rule #1
That said, the UNHCR aren’t the arbiters of international law.
No but you would expect the UNHCR to have access to the most reliable legal advice.
In many cases there is no relevant international court and enforcing international law isn’t really a thing anyway.
I don't know if that is true or not so I am prepared to accept that it might be. What I do know for certain is that it is a pisspoor excuse for the government to break the law......."there is no court to enforce the law and our legal obligations to it so we will ignore it".
But how typical of this government and the renowned party of "law and order", eh?
And if it is indeed the case legislation needs to be introduced to allow UK courts the power to enforce international legal obligations on UK gov ministers.
Although I would sadly have no confidence at all in the current Labour leadership having any commitment to any such legislation:
"The proposed presumption against prosecution applies to offences such as war crimes and torture and critics say it breaches international humanitarian law"
Edit : RE: "That said, the UNHCR aren’t the arbiters of international law" It is worth remembering that Priti Patel felt it was important to falsely claim that the UNHCR fully supported her.
No but you would expect the UNHCR to have access to the most reliable legal advice.
I'm not sure I would.
What I do know for certain is that it is a pisspoor excuse for the government to break the law
I am confident that the UK courts will give full effect to any rights asylum seekers have as a result of agreements that the UK has signed, I wrote this to explain the mechanics of how International treaties are enforced and was just pointing out the reality that there really isn't any way to enforce a decision against a sovereign nation outside the domestic courts.
And if it is indeed the case legislation needs to be introduced to allow UK courts the power to enforce international legal obligations on UK ministers.
That is generally the case, although often secondary legislation will be used.
The King (or very soon to be) has spoken, ooh, bit of politics.
Surprisingly King Charles III seems to have some decency on the issue, or at least can read the room
"BioNTech to soon start mRNA vaccine factory construction in Rwanda"
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/biontech-soon-start-mrna-vaccine-factory-construction-rwanda-2022-06-09/
"By most markers, Rwanda is climbing out of hell. Ranked among the least corrupt countries on earth, with more female parliamentarians than any other nation, universal health coverage and a predictable, market-friendly government. Thousands have been lifted out of poverty. Life expectancy increased from 48 to 67 in little over a decade." https://adamboggon.co.uk/adamboggon/about-rwanda
Leaving the arguments in this thread aside, ironically the UK could be in the process of losing some very driven, enterprising and resourceful people to Rwanda.
or at least can read the room
He hasn't though has he? He made a comment in private that he thought the idea was appalling. He is entitled to have an opinion on any subject in private, including whether or not something is appalling.
But for reasons unknown someone decided to allegedly leak that information to the Daily Mail and the Times, two newspapers not necessarily known for their opposition to the Tories's attitudes towards refugees.
And what room do you think he was reading? The monarchy is probably sufficiently secure in the UK for the alleged comment not to have a significant impact, but it will go down like a lead balloon within certain sections of Australian society where the role of the monarchy is far less secure and the whole principal of riding roughshod over the rights of non-european refugees and dumping them faraway in distant lands is highly popular.
Ranked among the least corrupt countries on earth, with more female parliamentarians than any other nation, universal health coverage and a predictable, market-friendly government. Thousands have been lifted out of poverty. Life expectancy increased from 48 to 67 in little over a decade.”
Yes as Priti Patel suggests Rwanda is like bleedin paradise.
That's why she thinks sending refugees there will put them off crossing the Channel.
The last place refugees want to go is paradise on Earth.
Yes as Priti Patel suggests Rwanda is like bleedin paradise.
She has me sold, I am packing my bags as sounds like a much better place that the shitty country England has become over the last 40 years. As least ****ers like Patel won't be there.
A good question …
https://twitter.com/alextaylornews/status/1536680775093043200?s=21
… the “answer” focuses on “legal routes” … something that would be very welcome.
https://twitter.com/colinyeo1/status/1536750358797729794?s=21
Some very busy legal work happening (no doubt to be derided by the Mail and government ministers very soon… followed by jibes about Starmer being focused on trivialities like laws and not breaking them)…
https://twitter.com/jacquimckenzie6/status/1536760560947286018?s=21
Opposition:
https://twitter.com/yvettecoopermp/status/1536424106878451712?s=21
https://twitter.com/yvettecoopermp/status/1536463717340266500?s=21
In the latest development Johnson is now suggesting that The UK could leave the European Convention on Human Rights as it may prevent it shipping asylum seekers to Rwanda
We can’t have those pesky lawyers demanding that the government actually adhere to international law now, can we?
And if that doesn’t sound like a descent into fascism, then it should, because it is
What the **** is happening to this country under this pack of lunatics. They’re turning us into some mad rogue state
https://twitter.com/itvnewspolitics/status/1536711158132002819?s=21&t=g7rB0kE-bTcdABH-Lmzwew
https://twitter.com/jolyonmaugham/status/1536765507382218753?s=21&t=g7rB0kE-bTcdABH-Lmzwew
It really does beggar belief. What a sad, sad day.
Stunts like this make me ashamed to be British.
Wating hundreds of millions of pounds on being horrible to other humans because of where they were born does not sit well with me.
I dont what the answer is, but deportation to Rwanda is not it. They will be back in 2mths.
If you wanTed to alienate a group of resourceful young men and leave hem open to radicalisation and recruitment by groups that wish Britain ill. You could do a awful lot worse than implemeeting a policy like this.
Genuinely didn't think the flight would leave today, how can the legal challenges not have found a way to delay it at least? How did it get to the ECHR having to step in using emergency powers?
It really does beggar belief. What a sad, sad day.
Makes me feel sick watching Johnson say that.
Is anyone coordinating a really big protest?
I never imagined that I would ever watch a British PM say he was pulling the UK out of the ECHR because it was now in contravention of ECHR rulings, all so they could deport asylum seekers to Rwanda
It’s just beyond reason
That’s how far down Johnson, the ERG and the Faragists have dragged this country in the last 6 years
It terrifies me thinking about where they’ll get us to before they’re done.
Unfortunately there is a rump of the electorate who are absolutely loving this!
I am truly ashamed to be British today
I can’t pretend that this thought was my own…
https://twitter.com/frankieboyle/status/1536642947751583744?s=20&t=5nma6UXVX5-Oi9s5pyHv3g
…but he is so right.
This opinion piece from five years ago is worth a quick read:
Grenfell shows just how Britain fails migrants
On the north Kensington streets, the truth of multicultural London is apparent – there is no cheaper life than that of a poor refugee
[ apologies if this feels like a side step - but the link is very real ]
There may be a chance we don’t go down this path engineered by the nasty party. Fingers crossed.
I am truly ashamed to be British today
Not the first time I’ve heard this today.
In the latest development Johnson is now suggesting that The UK could leave the European Convention on Human Rights
Is this the ECHR that we help set up?
Not seen much mention in the press of this being a reciprocal agreement.
No one will ever be sent there as the courts will stop them it being clearly illegal under international law
Maybe it needs double quoting now. It’s ageing just fine and I still think it will hold.
Imagine being expected to enact this policy. Wait till the pilot refuses to fly the plane. I wonder if the home office have that in their final final contingency planning.
Last minute injunction from the ECHR.
Proves gov.uk intended to break the human rights convention and Boris is on record saying he doesn’t care. Dark days, I wonder if the backbenchers are stirring again.
Now what…?
The public battle that the government want. To show that it’s them against the do-gooder lawyers. Bonus points for the battle involving foreign sounding courts. Certain papers are about to back Johnson like never before… this will be Brexit 2.0 for them… and him.
Just popped onto the Daily Fail Facebook page to see how the good folk of Britain are taking the news…good grief!
Why can’t these rabid and foul excuses for British people write and spell in their own language?
Dirty nasty people. Urgh.
ransos
Free Member
Last minute injunction from the ECHR
Sorry if already covered but I thought the ECHR had no jurisdiction in this matter?
To be clear I'm delighted the flight is not going ahead but as mentioned the government actively want this fight so it's a win, win for them...
The ECHR regularly passes judgements on matters concerning asylum seekers. It has in recent times condemned the treatment of asylum seekers by France, Bulgaria, Denmark, Hungary, Spain, and Italy, to name a few.
How effective ECHR condemnations of ill-treatment of those fleeing wars and persecution is at stopping illegal practices is another matter:
And for example Italy was found guilty by the ECHR of illegal pushbacks of asylum seekers 10 years ago but still allegedly engages in the practice.
The public battle that the government want. To show that it’s them against the do-gooder lawyers. Bonus points for the battle involving foreign sounding courts. Certain papers are about to back Johnson like never before… this will be Brexit 2.0 for them… and him.
The Mail are going with the angle that what Johnson and co want to do is the humane option and that the 'Euro' courts are the basty ones in all of this.
Sadly a large majority of their readers will believe it.