England Expects That Every Man, And Woman Will Do Their Duty.

[sandyRoe]

As does Scotland, Wales, and N Ireland.

What time are you going to the polling booth?

[10ClarionSt]

About 7.30am to exercise my franchise.

[buttons77]

Chorley residents don't have any real choice ☹️

[Arrods]

Postal vote. (Whether it gets there is another matter.)

[barry1010]

I'm not going.  Postal votes for us

[Old_Geezer]

Their duty being, of course, to vote Reform.

[Cloverjo]

About 9 am. It's just two minutes walk down the road.

[davebro3]

Just voted at 8 am. no queue. It's (nearly) all over bar the gloating!

[sandyRoe]

Gloating?  Never, who would do that?

The old order changeth, yielding place to new,

And God fulfils Himself in many ways,

Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.

[Hymie]

I would like the think that the incoming Labour government will remove all rights conferred by the ECHR on Reform voters (after all, they want them removed for everyone else) – so they could hardly complain.

[Impatiens]

Voting - tick ( or possibly X).

[youngmafbog]

Hymie, you are now beyond pathetic.  Stop ruing every thread with your sour grapes about Brexit.  

In answer to the OP, mine was in the post last week.  One daughter was hammering on the doors this morning and 'er who must be obeyed will go this evening.

 

[gulliver1]

I think the people who don't vote should receive a hefty fine.

[Old_Geezer]

The ECHR doesn't confer any additional rights that a sovereign independent nation can't confer on it's own citizens. It can, and does, however, inflict ridiculous restrictions, probably due to poor interpretation by the court, which proves it is no longer fit for purpose, and any responsible nation would want to replace.

[Hymie]

Would you trust a government which passed a law that states that Rwanda is a safe country (to which to send refugees), to guarantee your basic human rights – I certainly wouldn’t.

[Tilly2]

We went at about 2.30pm. Walked to the local polling station. They were giving away Celebrations chocolates. I had a Snicker.

[sandyRoe]

Who was giving out the chocolates?  It could be considered a bribe 😉

[237SJ]

Postal vote so already done it.  I was in Australia when there were elections and my friends there took the whole thing so seriously because voting was compulsory. I have friends here who "can't be arsed" or spoil their vote because they can't make their mind up.

[davebro3]

Hymie - do you know more about Rwanda than the UK government does?

[Hymie]

Like me, the UK government knows that Rwanda is not a safe place to which to send refugees.

 

Here are a few points that were presented to the UK Supreme Court by the UN Refugee Agency (the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or UNHCR) in relation to Rwanda being a safe country to send refugees to.

 

·         Rwanda’s procedures and institutions for processing asylum claims, such as a lack of legal representation, a risk that lawyers and judges do not act independently of the government in politically sensitive cases, and there being at the time no example of an appeal being brought against an asylum decision, despite a right of appeal existing since 2018.
 

·         The high rejection rate of asylum claims brought by individuals from certain countries. Citizens of Afghanistan, Syria, and Yemen all had a 0% success rate in claims processed by Rwanda from 2020 to 2022. By contrast, in the UK in the same period, the success rates were 74% for Afghans, 98% for Syrians, and 40% for Yemenis.
 

·         Rwanda’s practice of removing refugees to countries of origin where they could be at risk of persecution, including since the Rwanda agreement was signed – a violation of the principle of non-refoulement. In its evidence to the Supreme Court, UNHCR reported six recent cases of asylum claimants whose expulsion from Rwanda resulted in refoulement or would have without UNHCR’s intervention.
 

·         The Rwandan government’s apparent misunderstanding of the Refugee Convention, in particular the principle of non-refoulement. In its decision, the Supreme Court noted that the Rwandan government appeared to believe that asylum claimants can be expelled if they applied for asylum only after failing to satisfy immigration requirements (according to the Supreme Court, they cannot); and that the expulsion of asylum seekers who use forged documents does not constitute refoulement (for the Supreme Court, it does).

 

·         The Israel-Rwanda arrangement (described below) was said by the Supreme Court to raise questions about the Rwandan government’s commitment to non-refoulement. UNHCR presented evidence that asylum seekers who arrived in Rwanda under the agreement were routinely moved clandestinely to Uganda – a serious breach of their rights under the Refugee Convention, to which Rwanda is a signatory.

 

So despite knowing that Rwanda is not a safe place, the UK government passed a law stating Rwanda is a safe place.

[davebro3]

It's probably a safer place than the refugees (economic migrants) have left to come to the UK.