Trump/Ukraine, What Will He Do?
News1 min ago
Now What?
https:/
What of the million pounds given to Rwanda ,do we get that back?
What of the million pounds given to Rwanda ,do we get that back?
Answers
It's more or less inevitable that this will go to the Supreme Court, especially when it's a 2-1 majority opinion rather than unanimous. Still reading the judgment (linked below), and may comment further afterwards on the specifics, but since this is surely not the end of the story of whether the policy is lawful, it's probably better to wait for the end of the...
11:56 Thu 29th Jun 2023
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
https:/
I don't think there's any evidence beyond wishful thinking, though, that this would discourage people from coming. For example:
1. Desperation drives many, so why would that change if there's a risk of being sent to Rwanda?
2. Even if it enters their thinking, many might chance it anyhow because the risk of being caught is, or is perceived to be, low enough to cross.
3. Why are migrants expected to know so much about the ins and outs of UK Immigration policy? Many might not even be aware, or might not take it seriously, or some such.
4. And, finally, the number that was intended to be sent to Rwanda initially was on the order of 200 ( https:/
My comments earlier about the lawfulness of the policy still stand -- let's see what the Supreme Court says -- but the idea that this would be some kind of magic bullet was always nonsensical.
1. Desperation drives many, so why would that change if there's a risk of being sent to Rwanda?
2. Even if it enters their thinking, many might chance it anyhow because the risk of being caught is, or is perceived to be, low enough to cross.
3. Why are migrants expected to know so much about the ins and outs of UK Immigration policy? Many might not even be aware, or might not take it seriously, or some such.
4. And, finally, the number that was intended to be sent to Rwanda initially was on the order of 200 ( https:/
My comments earlier about the lawfulness of the policy still stand -- let's see what the Supreme Court says -- but the idea that this would be some kind of magic bullet was always nonsensical.
I don't know how many small boat arrivals are intercepted before landing -- it may well be 100% -- but it barely matters. We're talking about what the people at the other side *think*. And if they *think* there's a chance of making it without being caught then it doesn't matter, in terms of whether they try to set off, if they're wrong.
And what happens if those who aren’t picked up and ferried here do
get caught? Are they sent straight back? No they are not - and they know it. Hand-wringers and interfering courts need to keep their noses out of this and allow the government to put a stop to it - and flying them straight to Rwanda would accomplish exactly that.
get caught? Are they sent straight back? No they are not - and they know it. Hand-wringers and interfering courts need to keep their noses out of this and allow the government to put a stop to it - and flying them straight to Rwanda would accomplish exactly that.
// Are they sent straight back? No they are not - and they know it. Hand-wringers and interfering courts need to keep their noses out of this and allow the government to put a stop to it - and flying them straight to Rwanda would accomplish exactly that. //
Courts need to uphold the law. So they are doing their job. And it's an important aspect of today's decision, both in the minority and majority opinions, that the principle of "flying people straight to Rwanda" is not in itself unlawful. If, therefore, the Government wins on appeal to the Supreme Court, or otherwise gains the necessary reassurances, then the Courts won't intervene on a lawful policy.
Perhaps if you'd read the rest of my comment at 16.46, you'd see a few other points worth considering. In particular, that in any case the Rwanda policy was for only a relative handful of migrant boat arrivals (200, as opposed to the tens of thousands). You can't send any more of the arrivals to Rwanda, after all, than Rwanda is itself prepared to take.
Or, for that matter, than Rwanda is *capable* of taking. Consider that it's a far smaller country than the UK in both population and land area, with a resultant population density about twice ours. Rwanda's GDP, meanwhile, is less than 0.4% of our own. All of which means that even if Rwanda wished to take all 160,000 or however many it is of those in the UK asylum queue, then they literally could not.
Really, if you want to address the migrant boats scandal, then I think it requires two things:
1. Providing more safe routes to the UK, so that fewer people feel a "need" to turn to the dangerous and exploitative ones.
2. More work to stop people from wanting to leave their home countries in the first place -- or, rather, to encourage them to stay.
Humans tend to respond better to positive stimuli than to negative ones. Trying to intimidate them into not coming won't work.
Courts need to uphold the law. So they are doing their job. And it's an important aspect of today's decision, both in the minority and majority opinions, that the principle of "flying people straight to Rwanda" is not in itself unlawful. If, therefore, the Government wins on appeal to the Supreme Court, or otherwise gains the necessary reassurances, then the Courts won't intervene on a lawful policy.
Perhaps if you'd read the rest of my comment at 16.46, you'd see a few other points worth considering. In particular, that in any case the Rwanda policy was for only a relative handful of migrant boat arrivals (200, as opposed to the tens of thousands). You can't send any more of the arrivals to Rwanda, after all, than Rwanda is itself prepared to take.
Or, for that matter, than Rwanda is *capable* of taking. Consider that it's a far smaller country than the UK in both population and land area, with a resultant population density about twice ours. Rwanda's GDP, meanwhile, is less than 0.4% of our own. All of which means that even if Rwanda wished to take all 160,000 or however many it is of those in the UK asylum queue, then they literally could not.
Really, if you want to address the migrant boats scandal, then I think it requires two things:
1. Providing more safe routes to the UK, so that fewer people feel a "need" to turn to the dangerous and exploitative ones.
2. More work to stop people from wanting to leave their home countries in the first place -- or, rather, to encourage them to stay.
Humans tend to respond better to positive stimuli than to negative ones. Trying to intimidate them into not coming won't work.
For anyone disgruntled about the ECHR being able to override UKSC rulings, you need to vote Conservative at the next election:
The Conservative Party has indicated that were it to win the next General Election, it would introduce reforms which would, amongst other things, ensure that rulings of the European Court of Human Rights are no longer binding over the UK Supreme Court [] and, that the European Court of Human Rights would “no longer [be] able to order a change in UK law” and would become “an advisory body only.
https:/
But there could, of course, be a U turn on this.
The Conservative Party has indicated that were it to win the next General Election, it would introduce reforms which would, amongst other things, ensure that rulings of the European Court of Human Rights are no longer binding over the UK Supreme Court [] and, that the European Court of Human Rights would “no longer [be] able to order a change in UK law” and would become “an advisory body only.
https:/
But there could, of course, be a U turn on this.
The ECtHR has sometimes supported the UK Government, in the sense of finding that it has acted lawfully. So "the last time" might have to be defined -- obviously there are times when the ECtHR intervenes against the Government. But then, that is in effect its job: to provide a final supranational check on Government power. And on multiple occasions it has proven correct to do so (see eg Dudgeon v. UK (1981) and Lustig-Prean and Beckett v. UK (2000) (advancing rights for gay people); or Redfearn v UK (2012) (protecting people from work discrimination based on political beliefs)).
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Crime Cases Still Using Cassettes
Technology4 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
Vacuum Cleaner For Dog Hair...
Home & Garden9 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
