The Labour Government

Chippy_boy said:
You get a tiny bit of criticism from me and immediately resort to telling me fuck off etc etc etc, and then irony of irony, call ME a snowflake. Quite hilarious, love.

No-one was returned under Rwanda because Labour cancelled it. End of. Own it.

EDIT: BTW, 2 can play at the From AI game:

At the point Labour cancelled the Rwanda scheme in early July 2024, the emergency legislation and UK‑Rwanda treaty were both in force, clearing the main domestic legal barriers for removals. The Conservative government had prepared detentions, compiled a "first cohort" for deportations, and was publicly committed to flying people to Rwanda as soon as possible after the general election. In that sense, the machinery for removals was positioned to begin, subject to no new successful last-minute court actions—though it's impossible to know with certainty if further injunctions might have succeeded.

Labour’s cancellation halted the scheme before any forced removals took place. As a result, no one was deported under the Rwanda plan not because of unresolved government obstacles at that time, but because Labour, fulfilling a campaign promise, repealed the policy immediately after taking office. Thus, as a matter of chronology, it is accurate to say that no one was forcibly returned because Labour cancelled the scheme at the moment the machinery was technically ready but before any flights occurred.
Click to expand...
I called you a snowflake because you massively overreacted to a relatively benign post of mine, saying I’d “stooped so low”. Disagree with what I posted by all means but coming out with that line is, quite frankly, pathetic. Perhaps you should have a day off from this area of the forum every now and then for your own good - it’s what I do at times because I can’t be arsed wasting too much of my time arguing with posters about politics, especially people I’ve known for years on here.

I’ll also add that your post above doesn’t back up your claim that Labour put any obstacles in the way to stall the Rwanda scheme. They simply cancelled it when they got into government just as they said they would. In any case, if Sunak had gotten in again and we did start to see movement on it, it was only ever limited to a few hundred whereas the current scheme can potentially be upscaled way beyond that.

Enjoy your weekend.
 
M18CTID said:
I called you a snowflake because you massively overreacted to a relatively benign post of mine, saying I’d “stooped so low”. Disagree with what I posted by all means but coming out with that line is, quite frankly, pathetic. Perhaps you should have a day off from this area of the forum every now and then for your own good - it’s what I do at times because I can’t be arsed wasting too much of my time arguing with posters about politics, especially people I’ve known for years on here.

I’ll also add that your post above doesn’t back up your claim that Labour put any obstacles in the way to stall the Rwanda scheme. They simply cancelled it when they got into government just as they said they would. In any case, if Sunak had gotten in again and we did start to see movement on it, it was only ever limited to a few hundred whereas the current scheme can potentially be upscaled way beyond that.

Enjoy your weekend.
Click to expand...
Any scheme where the judiciary deems a country to be unsafe, but then MPs who have never been there have a vote to declare it safe is clearly unfit for purpose and was rightly binned. If it's safe, maybe the likes of Philp, Braverman and Jenrick would like to give it a go for a few months. In the time the deal was on the table, 21 Rwandans were granted asylum in the UK.
 
TinFoilHat said:
I'll believe it when I see it.

Our government is complicit in the Genocide.
Click to expand...
Tinny, you don't mind me calling you Tinny do you ? that wasn't really my point.
I was being sarcastic.
If on January 1st a map showed houses, high rise apartments, shops etc...... well, if you were shown an aerial photograph only 9 months later, Palestine would be very hard to recognise. The evil bastards have laid it to waste.

A fact that is seemingly missed by politicians.
 
hampshireblue said:
Any scheme where the judiciary deems a country to be unsafe, but then MPs who have never been there have a vote to declare it safe is clearly unfit for purpose and was rightly binned. If it's safe, maybe the likes of Philp, Braverman and Jenrick would like to give it a go for a few months. In the time the deal was on the table, 21 Rwandans were granted asylum in the UK.
Click to expand...

Out of interest had the judges that declared it unsafe been there?
 
Chippy_boy said:
You seem to have forgotten that the legal challenges were resolved. It is entirely disingenuous to try to pretend that the Tories were to blame for no-one being returned under the Rwanda scheme. When the reason is that Labour cancelled it before it started.

I'm surprised you decided to stoop so low. "OK fair enough" would have been the appropriate response, not the irrelevant nonsense you tried (and failed) to hide behind.
Click to expand...
How was it "resolved"?

The Foreign Office advises against all but essential travel to parts of Rwanda. But for the purposes of sending Asians to Rwanda, our sovereign Parliament did the 1984 thing and passed a law: "Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country".
 
Vic said:
How was it "resolved"?

The Foreign Office advises against all but essential travel to parts of Rwanda. But for the purposes of sending Asians to Rwanda, our sovereign Parliament did the 1984 thing and passed a law: "Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country".
Click to expand...
You answered your own question.

One of the enormous benefits of Brexit. We get to decide upon our own laws not be bound by some other body we didn't vote for.

Parliament is sovereign, not law courts, nor the Foreign Office.
 
Last edited:
hampshireblue said:
I honestly don't know. But the judiciary are considered neutral and considered it unsafe. A politically motivated majority of MPs then decided it was safe.
Click to expand...


So having gone to, or not gone to, Rwanda doesn’t have a bearing on the quality of the decision - and I agree with that, plenty of evidence available to all sides to come up with the right decision. Of course it was politically motivated mate - lots of policy passed by any government is, some for ideological reasons others for expediency but I’m sure I didn’t have to tell you that!!!

I happen to think the 1 in 1 out is better than Rwanda not because it’s a better solution in terms of a deterrent (I haven’t considered it in that context) but because it’s fairer and while people hark on about what it means to be British, a sense of fairness is high on that list for me.
 
1758358054662.png

I saw this posted today. It was from just before the budget, and it really does sum up just how bonkers any debate around government spending is.

While the lack of knowledge around asylum/migrant spending explains a little about why people care so much about a few boats, it's far from the most astonishing example. There appear to be millions upon millions of people who believe that we spend more on MPs expenses, than we do on School and Universities, or the State Pension.

Oh for the days when we thought the internet might mean we'd all have easy access to genuine knowledge.
 
Chippy_boy said:
You answered your own question.

One of the enormous benefits of Brexit. We get to decide upon our own laws not be bound by some other body we didn't vote for.

Parliament is sovereign, not law courts, nor the Foreign Office.
Click to expand...
So he's suggesting that pre-2016 the UK government couldn't make a call on whether another country was safe or not? Really?
 
M18CTID said:
Stoop so low? Are you for fucking real? Give your fanny a wipe you big fuck-off snowflake!

I don't know what the fuck has happened to you recently but you've proper lost the plot. Jesus wept!

Anyway, some reading for you. You tart. Fuck all about Labour stopping it:

Why did the Rwanda scheme fail?


AI Overview

The Rwanda scheme "failed" because UK courts and the Supreme Court ruled it unlawful, citing Rwanda's poor human rights record and systematic defects in its asylum processing, which posed a risk of violating the non-refoulement principle. Although the policy was intended to deter irregular migration, it incurred significant costs, failed to deport anyone, and was blocked by legal challenges and international human rights obligations.

Legal and Human Rights Obstacles

  • Unsafe Country:
    The Supreme Court unanimously found Rwanda not to be a safe country for asylum seekers, primarily due to the real risk that asylum seekers could be sent back to their countries of origin where they faced persecution.

  • Breach of Non-Refoulement:
    The scheme was found to contravene the principle of non-refoulement, a fundamental tenet of international refugee law and the 1951 Refugee Convention, which prohibits returning refugees to countries where they face danger.

  • Poor Human Rights Record:
    The UK courts cited evidence of Rwanda's poor human rights record, including past killings of government critics and police violence against protesting refugees, raising concerns about the safety of individuals sent there.

  • Flawed Asylum System:
    The courts identified serious flaws in Rwanda's asylum system, concluding it was not capable of fairly processing asylum claims or ensuring proper judicial appeals, which would put genuine asylum seekers at risk.
Practical and Political Outcomes
  • Lack of Deployed Asylum Seekers:
    No asylum seekers were forcibly relocated under the UK-Rwanda partnership, with the first flight in June 2022 being halted by the European Court of Human Rights.

  • Significant Costs:
    The policy proved to be extremely expensive, with costs potentially exceeding £700 million for a scheme that resulted in no deportations.

  • Failure as a Deterrent:
    Evidence suggests the plan failed as a deterrent to migration, and it did not address the root causes of migration, such as poverty, conflict, and insecurity.

  • Legal and Political Resistance:
    The policy faced persistent legal challenges and opposition from human rights organizations, international bodies, and political parties.

  • Legislative Efforts:
    The UK government attempted to make the plan lawful by creating new treaties and domestic legislation, but these efforts were met with continued legal challenges.
Click to expand...
I am sitting here laughing.
Look at Arsenal Fucking advertising Visit Rwanda all over their stadium. It seems if you want to go on holiday it's very safe if you want to deport someone there it's very dangerous Which one is it ?
The British are being taken for a ride . Granting asylum to people because the place they live is dangerous . A few months later they are going back on holiday which you are paying for.
Forget everything else .
The system as it is is unsustainable Britain is already one of the most densely populated countries and take into account that most of those arriving have fuck all to offer in the way of skillsets then we are heading for a total disaster. What about the hundreds of thousands who are in their 40s or more how will they pay for a pension in the future. How will they get dentist doctors treatments?. How many dependents will they send for? and who will pay for their upkeep.
The UK is fucked
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top