The Labour Government

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
 
John John said:
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
Click to expand...

I won't address everything in that post, but "A few months later they are going back on holiday which you are paying for." this is not true.

If you're an asylum seeker you can't travel. If you get refugee status, you can apply to travel, but not using your own passport. The Home Office have to give you permission, and it would almost always specifically exclude a return to the country you claimed asylum from.

If you've been in the UK as a refugee for more than 5 years (or 10 in some cases), you may be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain, which gives you a more settled status, and allows more normal travel. However, you are still almost certainly not allowed to visit the country you left.

ps. just an aside - people who make the kind of journey that is required to get to the UK from the likes of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan etc., tend not to be looking for an easy life on benefits. In my experience, they're some of the most resourceful people around, and are usually desperate to work.
 
Last edited:
John John said:
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
Click to expand...

A pretty good summary, sadly.
 
I must admit on this thread we do seem to see strong anti immigration policy as right wing with the left doing it under duress. Its interesting therefore that the left leaning government in Denmark has won popularity with "Danes first" policies designed to deter lower skilled economic migrants and to a certain extent asylum seekers.

If it is to be believed that immigration policy will be the key battleground for the next election, maybe Labour should take a look at Denmark.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mgkd93r4yo
 
Last edited:
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...
I'm not sure the EU could have stopped Parliament passing a law that said "Every decision maker must say black is white".

Is that really your take on it? That sovereignty means freedom to pass a law denying reality?
 
Vic said:
I'm not sure the EU could have stopped Parliament passing a law that said "Every decision maker must say black is white".

Is that really your take on it? That sovereignty means freedom to pass a law denying reality?
Click to expand...
It's the nonsense the right wing come out with nowadays.
 
John John said:
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
Click to expand...
Were the asylum seekers going as tourists?

And Rwanda is more densely populated than the UK.
 
Oldham Exile said:
This is of major impact and it's the first time I have seen it even mentioned
Click to expand...
It's because he's talking bollocks:

No, gaining asylum does not automatically allow a person to bring family to the UK; instead, they must apply for family reunion through a separate process, and eligibility depends on specific criteria like the relationship to the sponsor and when the family unit was formed. Eligible family members, typically partners and children under 18, must submit their own applications and provide biometrics at a visa application center.

It's really not hard to dispel much of what he says nowadays.
 
John John said:
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
Click to expand...
48th apparently.

I suspect visiting a country/city and living there are 2 very different experiences.

It's a bit like visiting Liverpool, I may need/want to go for a few hours and hopefully not get my wheels nicked, but there's no way I'd want to live there. :-)

It could have been many cities, but I thought you'd appreciated the Scouse reference.
 
Last edited:
hampshireblue said:
It's because he's talking bollocks:

No, gaining asylum does not automatically allow a person to bring family to the UK; instead, they must apply for family reunion through a separate process, and eligibility depends on specific criteria like the relationship to the sponsor and when the family unit was formed. Eligible family members, typically partners and children under 18, must submit their own applications and provide biometrics at a visa application center.

It's really not hard to dispel much of what he says nowadays.
Click to expand...
Even British citizens can't automatically bring a spouse (e.g. unless their joint income is at least £29k).
 
maxwellblue said:
Exactly, 1165 in since Friday, 6500 in since starmer struck the 1 in 1 out deal. Which really is 6500 in andc3 out.
Click to expand...

The 3 out means that France will actually send 3 in so it’s a joke of a policy that is simply not going to work
 
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