Another go at the Rwanda bill

On Question Time last night one of the panellists was George Monbiot. He tore the Rwanda policy to shreds and got a big round of applause.

When the audience was asked who agreed with the government's Rwanda policy apparently only 2 people put their hands up.

This was in a mainly tory voting area.

I don't think that the policy is as popular as some posters think it is.

I never thought a government of ours could sink so low. Are they so desperate to hold on to power that they are willing to sell their souls to the devil?

Well, the Rwandan economy is getting a nice little boost from this farcical scheme.

Quote from Gavin Esler

“Imagine future historians trying to explain why the British Conservative Party tore itself apart trying to send a handful of people to a country in Africa - and failing repeatedly. Those who the gods wish to destroy, first they make mad”

I see that the polls are getting unbelievable regarding a Labour majority - I simply don’t believe it.

growstuff

I really don't have the energy to plough through the latest scheme. However, could somebody please explain something? Am I right in thinking that if somebody fails to be granted asylum in Rwanda, he/she will be returned to the UK? My understanding that's how the government hopes to get round the possibility that failed asylum seekers could be returned to their country of origin or sent to some random third country, which is the main reason the second scheme failed.

Yes that is what I understand to be the case. So bizarrely successful applicants will remain in Rwanda and failed applicants will returned to the U.K.! That is to get around the court judgement of the consideration that Rwanda was shipping “failed” applicants to other war torn countries etc and so failing the “safe” test. The fact that they have killed or tortured the odd one or two refugees doesn’t seem to matter.

There’s also a separate right to remain category plus the option of applying for full British citizenship. I don’t know if the income thresholds have been changed for these groups.

I suspect the money that is being spent comes from the same pot as the one paying for the hotels ie The overseas aid budget! However having shot themselves in the foot by declaring anyone arriving on a small boat as "illegal" the overseas aid budget can not be used for housing these asylum seekers in the UK. I bet it can be used to pay Rwanda!

For a brief moment, I thought perhaps the Tories were going to be hoist with their own populist petard, would be forced to actually deliver actions relating to this policy, and thus reveal that it didn’t work.

But the timing now wont permit that, so they can carry on with this meaningless, divisive, shameful bombastic nonsense, spending public money on what is no more than a Tory election campaign, for a few more months.

The whole Rwanda scheme is a moral disgrace. Almost no-one in a balanced QT audience last night spoke in favour of it. And a Bill which seeks to exclude government decisions from review by the judges is the start of a slippery slope. Which government decisions would be next to become unreviewable. Outrageous.

I really don't have the energy to plough through the latest scheme. However, could somebody please explain something? Am I right in thinking that if somebody fails to be granted asylum in Rwanda, he/she will be returned to the UK? My understanding that's how the government hopes to get round the possibility that failed asylum seekers could be returned to their country of origin or sent to some random third country, which is the main reason the second scheme failed.

MaizieD

Chocolatelovinggran

Oops - update £240 million..

Nope, it turns out to be in excess of £300million.

Plus a yearly payment to the Rwanda government, plus each person flown out will be an added expense of 10s of thousands.

The relentless pursuit of this ridiculous scheme is verging on insanity.

Right from the start most people thought it an absurd idea. Instead of taking the obvious route of jacking it in they just plod on. There's no indignity in admitting you're wrong occasionally.

I'm getting to the point where the word Rwanda fills me with malevolent thoughts.

This situation has been going on for years. The small boats were preceded by the lorries. There’s been a report on South Today saying many migrants are still trying to get on the lorries in Calais. I don’t know the answer to all this but throwing money at Rwanda is a waste of time and money. Speeding up asylum applications would get people out of hotels but they can only work when they have an address and where are they going to get a place to live? Along with the other three quarters of a million who arrived legally last year. The whole situation is a complete mess. Nothing is working as it should.

There's no reason why both can't be played.

MaizieD

GrannyGravy13

Totally agree ronib

I have a problem with the people smugglers and the dangerous boat crossings, I fear a disaster any day as the channel is so busy with large ships and ferries.

It must be a difficult and lengthy process to identify and then verify each asylum seekers claim as a fair few are told to destroy their papers.

Prosecuting the criminal gangs/people smugglers should be a priority for all Governments.

It's a mystery how similar numbers of asylum applications managed to be cleared in a timely fashion pre 2019...

I think the country has been well and truly played on this issue.

It’s the desperation of those in the boats that has been played by the corrupt people smugglers.

MaizieD and let’s think - what happened in 2019? Well July 2019 BJ became pm. Interesting.

Chocolatelovinggran

Oops - update £240 million..

Nope, it turns out to be in excess of £300million.

GrannyGravy13

Totally agree ronib

I have a problem with the people smugglers and the dangerous boat crossings, I fear a disaster any day as the channel is so busy with large ships and ferries.

It must be a difficult and lengthy process to identify and then verify each asylum seekers claim as a fair few are told to destroy their papers.

Prosecuting the criminal gangs/people smugglers should be a priority for all Governments.

It's a mystery how similar numbers of asylum applications managed to be cleared in a timely fashion pre 2019...

I think the country has been well and truly played on this issue.

I suspect that there will be a headline grabbing big ‘clear out’ of outstanding asylum applications just before the election to convince the electorate that the asylum policy is in fact working..but we weren’t born yesterday.

Totally agree ronib

I have a problem with the people smugglers and the dangerous boat crossings, I fear a disaster any day as the channel is so busy with large ships and ferries.

It must be a difficult and lengthy process to identify and then verify each asylum seekers claim as a fair few are told to destroy their papers.

Prosecuting the criminal gangs/people smugglers should be a priority for all Governments.

Absolutely right ronib. Perhaps that might have been a better use of the £240 million.

I don’t know why but for some reason, The Goon Shows spring to mind.
I know it’s easy to criticise from the sidelines but why on earth has the impetus not been on fast processing of asylum claims? Either be given entry or denied. For those with real asylum needs, it would make sense to give leave to remain and employment be found for them. Or is this too difficult?

Oops - update £240 million..

150 million ÷ 200 people..we could put them up at The Ritz? Or The Dorchester?

I haven’t given it any thought, but does anyone know whether this legislation may impeach on any of our freedoms under the act?