Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Home Office and UK government policy concerning asylum seekers/Rwanda deportations

Emergency just means it's legislation that's been rushed through rather than legislation to deal with an emergency. Tbh I think one of the reasons that the current Rwanda policy is such a dog's dinner is because it too was just rushed into. Include not learning from his mistakes to the list of Sevenbins failings.
 
Emergency just means it's legislation that's been rushed through rather than legislation to deal with an emergency. Tbh I think one of the reasons that the current Rwanda policy is such a dog's dinner is because it too was just rushed into. Include not learning from his mistakes to the list of Sevenbins failings.

It was one of Blustercunt’s things that he said to deflect attention until the next thing came along, like all the lies he told it was never meant to be taken seriously by anyone.
 
Thread discussing the effect of the SC decision from an immigration and asylum lawyer. He argues that, despite Sunak's attempt at saving face, the prospects for being able to resurrect this scheme are slim, at least for the foreseeable future. There will be no deportations under such a scheme before the next general election.

It’s important to note that the SC doesn’t rule out that the Rwandan system could be improved, & it hasn’t found that the idea of a scheme like this is prohibited (it wasn’t asked to decide that).

But what are the prospects of that happening? The Court of Appeal previously pointed to a real need for thorough culture change in the Rwandan civil service & judiciary, & to an absence of any sort of roadmap for achieving it (in a state ofc uninterested in the rule of law).

And whilst this decision is a disaster for Patel, Braverman, Johnson & Sunak & all else who supported the policy, it’s surely a catastrophe for Rwanda, whose record has been pored over in detail in the most public way. (I’ve never understood why they didn’t predict that.)

For the same reason I can’t personally see any other state wanting to line up to replace Rwanda, whatever ££ incentives are offered (and remember we still don’t know the full extent of these in respect of Rwanda).

Any attempt to amend or replicate this policy will almost certainly be scrutinised with great care & intensity by the courts, inspired by the example of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court in this case.

The government will not get an easy ride.

 
I think people are missing the point.

The Rwanda scheme cannot work in the way the Tories say it can and they can probably not implement it.

The point is that it, and similar Tory policies are never-ending grievance generators for their base, never ending distractions from the horrific shitshow that is the UK govt response to just about everything - health, welfare, economy, climate, transport etc etc (and their corruption and theft that accompanies the shitshow)

For Tory propagandists, as for Trumpoids, defeats of whatever magnitude are just grist for the never ending grievance and conspiracy mill …
 
I think people are missing the point.

The Rwanda scheme cannot work in the way the Tories say it can and they can probably not implement it.

The point is that it, and similar Tory policies are never-ending grievance generators for their base, never ending distractions from the horrific shitshow that is the UK govt response to just about everything - health, welfare, economy, climate, transport etc etc (and their corruption and theft that accompanies the shitshow)

For Tory propagandists, as for Trumpoids, defeats of whatever magnitude are just grist for the never ending grievance and conspiracy mill …
on the other hand the south georgia scheme proposed on here over the last several years is both practical and feasible. the only thing currently lacking is the political will to implement it.
 
This policy is dead. It was always predicated on ignorant assumptions about Rwanda and could never pretend to act as a deterrent to the 'boats'. The rest was performative cruelty pandering to heartless cunts.

Sunak is now just trying to pacify the nasty base in a holding pattern as the overall administration disintegrates into a general election. They believe their nasty base is bigger and more influential than it now is.
 
One thing that bugs me is whenever some Tory cunt opens their trap is all this "the nation expects... the British people voted to stop the boats" etc bollocks. Predictably, this shit rarely (never?) gets challenged by the Labour spokesperson on the spot or by the TV news interviewer.
 
This policy is dead. It was always predicated on ignorant assumptions about Rwanda and could never pretend to act as a deterrent to the 'boats'. The rest was performative cruelty pandering to heartless cunts.

Sunak is now just trying to pacify the nasty base in a holding pattern as the overall administration disintegrates into a general election. They believe their nasty base is bigger and more influential than it now is.

He's really caught between a rock and a hard place hasn't he though? Anybody remotely left of center thinks this policy is just a non-starter, the headbangers who support it believe (largely rightly) that to implement it anytime soon requires withdrawing from international treaties and repealing a whole bunch of domestic legislation. This is a massive undertaking that Sunak has neither the time nor the will for. The Tories have been promising to repeal the Human Rights Act for 13 years now and have failed. Ultimately, nobody is left happy.
 
And now Sunak wants to pass legislation to 'show' Rwanda is 'safe'.

If a bunch of ignorant twats declare a country to be safe that simply makes it so?

What sort of planet are they living on? Aren't they trying any more to make the Trumpist crap even slightly believable?

Fucking embarrassing.
 
He's not going to eb able to extricate us from international treaties without serious consequences, surely? What aboot the Good Friday Agreement, or the EU trade agreement?
 
He's not going to eb able to extricate us from international treaties without serious consequences, surely? What aboot the Good Friday Agreement, or the EU trade agreement?
Got it in one, It's the ECHR they want us out off but they all refer to each other and each one builds on previous treaties. It's like playing jenga by pulling out the blocks on the bottom first. All this posturing is just red meat for the base to try and win votes.
And they're probably right it will win them some but nowhere near enough to replace the ones they've lost due to high interest rates, falling living standards, the fact the economy has been circling the drain since lockdown and the general air of corruption and utter incompetence that hangs around the Tory party like a stray dog outside a butcher's shop.
 
I think it's all performative - there are almost certainly 40+ on the Tory benches who would not vote to leave the ECHR, so it's kind of moot. It's about making enough of this moonhowler noise for long enough to the next GE, where they lose and don't have to worry about walking the fine line between stirring up the base to not get deselected, and not leaving the ECHR so the world stops talking to us.
 
And now Sunak wants to pass legislation to 'show' Rwanda is 'safe'.

If a bunch of ignorant twats declare a country to be safe that simply makes it so?

What sort of planet are they living on? Aren't they trying any more to make the Trumpist crap even slightly believable?

Fucking embarrassing.
They knew this judgement was coming and they knew they were very likely to lose. Which means this must be thought of as a considered response made with lots of time to weigh up the options.
 
He's really caught between a rock and a hard place hasn't he though? Anybody remotely left of center thinks this policy is just a non-starter, the headbangers who support it believe (largely rightly) that to implement it anytime soon requires withdrawing from international treaties and repealing a whole bunch of domestic legislation. This is a massive undertaking that Sunak has neither the time nor the will for. The Tories have been promising to repeal the Human Rights Act for 13 years now and have failed. Ultimately, nobody is left happy.


Good.
 
They knew this judgement was coming and they knew they were very likely to lose. Which means this must be thought of as a considered response made with lots of time to weigh up the options.
Although, if some of the submissions from the Covid Enquiry are anything to go by, it's just as possible that they're cluelessly running around like a bunch of headless chickens, reassuring each other that they're bang on the money (quite literally, in some cases...:hmm:)
 
Got it in one, It's the ECHR they want us out off but they all refer to each other and each one builds on previous treaties. It's like playing jenga by pulling out the blocks on the bottom first. All this posturing is just red meat for the base to try and win votes.
And they're probably right it will win them some but nowhere near enough to replace the ones they've lost due to high interest rates, falling living standards, the fact the economy has been circling the drain since lockdown and the general air of corruption and utter incompetence that hangs around the Tory party like a stray dog outside a butcher's shop.
THe ECHR doesn't even have anything to do with it as the ruling explicitly stated. Yet this is all these fools hear. THe death spiral of these dizzy psychos will take us down with it
 
THe ECHR doesn't even have anything to do with it as the ruling explicitly stated. Yet this is all these fools hear. THe death spiral of these dizzy psychos will take us down with it
you stupid, stupid man. what the supreme court actually said was that it is not all about the echr, that a range of domestic laws and other international treaties are in play alongside the european convention of human rights. you really are a fuckwit.
 
They knew this judgement was coming and they knew they were very likely to lose. Which means this must be thought of as a considered response made with lots of time to weigh up the options.
I think in all honesty they though they would probably win, the Supreme Court has often sided with the Govt and overturned the Court of Appeal on the grounds that Judges interpret the law and Parliament makes it. The fact that they didn't this time just shows what a piece of ill thought out fuckwittery it has been from the off.
Although, if some of the submissions from the Covid Enquiry are anything to go by, it's just as possible that they're cluelessly running around like a bunch of headless chickens, reassuring each other that they're bang on the money (quite literally, in some cases...:hmm:)
Surely not? say it isn't so.
 
I think it's all performative - there are almost certainly 40+ on the Tory benches who would not vote to leave the ECHR, so it's kind of moot. It's about making enough of this moonhowler noise for long enough to the next GE, where they lose and don't have to worry about walking the fine line between stirring up the base to not get deselected, and not leaving the ECHR so the world stops talking to us.

I referred to this performative thing yesterday.

On further consideration I suspect there is a hardcore of Tory MPs who are serious about both sending refugees to Rwanda and leaving the ECHR.

But for the vaguely sane majority I think they're more interested in appearing to want these things, and in using their failure to get them as further evidence that the tofu-eating wokerati have sabotaged the elected government and the (supposed) will of the British people.
 
I think in all honesty they though they would probably win,
Braverman's resignation letter suggests otherwise. Writing before the judgement, she doesn't even seriously contemplate the govt winning. She more or less assumes it will lose and sets out all the reasons why it will have lost - All Sunak's fault, guv. I would have got it done.

At every stage of litigation I cautioned you and your team against assuming we would win. I repeatedly urged you to take legislative measures that would better secure us against the possibility of defeat. You ignored these arguments. You opted instead for wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices. This irresponsibility has wasted time and left the country in an impossible position.

The legislative measures she's referring to, of course, are the abandoning or arbitrary overriding of various laws and treaties.

It's difficult to judge from the outside exactly how negligently incompetent various branches of government are. Braverman may be right that Sunak just basically ignored the problems hoping the judgement would go their way and so was winging it yesterday. I mean it did sound like he was winging it.

But reading between the lines, it is clear at least that there were civil servants warning that this would happen. And it's clear that Braverman herself expected this verdict or something very similar.
 
Back
Top Bottom