Yes that would have bought a heck of a lot of tents for the homeless, or several hotels for asylum seekers…
The absurd and tragic thing about this whole farce is that it’s almost entirely of the Government’s own making. People are making the Channel crossing in small boats because UK rules say they can’t apply for asylum until they arrive here, the Government has refused to set up a processing centre in (say) Calais, and there is a big backlog of applications because the number of civil servants dealing with asylum applications has been cut - hence the whole business with barges. It’s also to some extent to do with tighter security at the Channel Tunnel and French ports, and higher fees charged by people smugglers.
The UK has also withdrawn from the EU’s Dublin Agreement, which allows for the processing of asylum applications based on an asylum seeker’s personal connections with that country, which EU country they have previously visited, or if none of the above where they entered the EU.
But of course because “we won’t be governed by EU laws” so we’re not taking part in this scheme.
And finally, of those that do make it to the UK, almost all are eventually given leave to remain - in 2019 1,890 arrived in small boats - of these only 125 were sent back - slightly less than 7%.
It would be far more efficient (and humane) to open an immigration office in Calais to deal with applications, then nobody would be put in danger.
I also object to the way the UK’s international reputation is being dragged through the mud by this, showing our Government to have a callous indifference to the suffering of genuine asylum seekers (I refer anyone who says they are “economic migrants” to the figures I have given above for the success of asylum applications); and its abject failure to meet its humanitarian obligations, especially in comparison with other European countries who have absorbed far more people over the last few years.
Something else supremely daft about this that I didn’t realise until today - 200 is not the initial batch of people that the Government want to deport to Rwanda (i.e. one planeload) - it’s the maximum that Rwanda say they are able to accept!!
Apparently they “plan to increase their infrastructure” to be able to deal with more, but right now 200 is the top limit!
So this whole hugely expensive absurdity (£140m payment to Rwanda plus however much the court cases cost) is to deport just 200 people. That’s a cost of over £750,000 a head!
If the number of arrivals had stayed at that level it wouldn’t be a major issue, however, last year’s number was over 45000 most of whom went straight into b&b’s or hotels at the taxpayer’s expense.
Those fleeing for their lives should certainly be relieved that their danger is removed.
Hotel accommodation is not necessarily what they were expecting.
There is MOD accommodation available, which will need updating, but which would eventually provide more housing for local people.
Why is this so difficult?
Of course - but as I mentioned earlier, if the Government were to make it possible to apply for asylum before arriving in the UK, nobody would have to risk their lives either in boats or by stowing away in refrigerated lorries. And even 45,000 is a small number compared to the 217,000 processed by Germany, 137,500 by France, 116,000 by Spain etc. (source - EU).
The UK Government is spending a lot of money trying to dodge its humanitarian responsibilities. Again, it should be emphasised that only 7% of migrants are denied leave to remain in the UK once their applications are processed.
As Asylum In Europe point out: “The UK … operates juxtaposed controls in France and Belgium. In the control zones in France and Belgium, no asylum claim can be made to UK authorities,[5] and the acknowledged purpose of these agreements with France and Belgium was to stop people travelling to the UK to claim asylum”
It’s a bit of both - there are no other routes in so people are forced to taking the cross channel route and processing speed has slowed considerably hence the backlog.
It’s all a manufactured crisis by the government to stir up hate and division - but that’s all this government is good for any longer.
I can’t help but think this whole hysteria about immigration from the Conservative government, and the lengths they are going to to force the point, with no evidence that ‘this is what most people want’ (to quote Rishi) is only a trojan horse, being used to push the agenda of those who just want the country to extricate itself from any sort of international agreement because ‘freedom’ (for them at least ). Probably freedom to do all sorts of nasty things that they can’t currently do. Also, this idea of passing laws to override a Supreme Court judgment would probably make the Tufton Street idiots slobber uncontrollably if it created a precedent that Parliament could override the Supreme Court.
Once all this is accomplished, there would be nothing to stop a dictatorship.
Interestingly I just double checked and, although the quote is widely attributed to Benn, it is not actually his - in fact it comes from the Scottish journalist and writer Neal Ascherson.
The elephant in the room is that Braverman and Sunak are both children of immigrants. I have heard people express the view that there are those who would like it that immigrants from the Indian sub-continent should be preferred. Please note. These are not my views, nor do I endorse them.
). Probably freedom to do all sorts of nasty things that they can’t currently do. Also, this idea of passing laws to override a Supreme Court judgment would probably make the Tufton Street idiots slobber uncontrollably if it created a precedent that Parliament could override the Supreme Court.