Excellent! @Nigel-at-BUF-House
I have printed your ideas off, I will have it framed with the title “In case of emergency - Break Glass” and post it to 10 Downing Street.
All jokes aside, you do know you’ll never get a job with the civil service if you keep providing logical, workable solutions to issues, don’t you?
Henri
I am highly dubious that she came up with the solution of offshore processing herself.
This has Tony Abbott type policy written all over it.
For anyone interested in the earlier Australian versions of the Rwanda policy and how they fared, you can research Manus Island Regional Processing Centre and Nauru Regional Processing Centre.
No decent human being would ever wish anyone the horrors of these places, or the nine years plus in detention centres that refugees have faced on mainland Australia.
But let’s face it, it would seem it’s not about a policy to actually deal with the issue, what it would appear is they seek a policy that can be used to create a slogan along the lines of “we stopped the boats” or give Boris the chance to have his John Howard moment on TV “Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard said ‘we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come’”.
It’s not about policy or suggestions from critics or advisers, I can’t be the only one that thinks it’s all about votes for the government.
Hello Lumbar.
Well Poland and Hungary are rightwing so no surprises there and you will remember that Italy and Greece had major refugee volume issues some years back. Countries bordering Ukraine are of course struggling now too. Many countries have refugee issues and problems which they are working to address.
But I used the word “whinge” regarding the UK on purpose. I think there is a disproportionate focus in the UK on what, given the challenges other countries face, isn’t actually a major problem.
I heard a interviewer on the W@O press a tory MP on what are the legal routes for someone who wishes to claim asylum in the UK. There are none, and that’s why people are risking their lives trying to cross the channel. Patel’s shoddy behaviour over processing Ukrainian refugees is further testament to her aversion to helping people fleeing for their lives.
Frankly, I’m just fed up with all the misinformation and lies. That’s the only area IMO in which the Tories are truly World beating.
I don’t think we are comparing apple with apples Lumbar. The Australian idea , expensive failure that it was, carried out the asylum request processing overseas, if the candidate was successful they got to live in Oz. Patel’s version is much more simple, refugees just get exported to Rwanda. They never come back.
That’s why I (rather clumsily) used the above title for this thread. During the Ulster plantation the motto was “to Hell or to Connaught”, those people never came back either.
Hi John
To clarify the policy for you, because you might not be aware.
" Since offshore processing began on 13 August 2012, the Australian Government has sent 4,183 people to Nauru or Papua New Guinea. There is a slight discrepancy between this figure, provided by the Australian Border Force on 14 July 2019, and the figure of 4,177 people, provided by the Department of Home Affairs in April 2019 to the Senate estimates.
Of these, 3,127 people have been sent to Nauru or Papua New Guinea (PNG) since 19 July 2013, when the Australian Government changed its policy so that people who are transferred offshore can never resettle in Australia. Source dated 11/04/2022 Offshore processing statistics accessed 18/04/2022
I see no difference in policy, do you? Apples compared to apples?
Offshore processing in Papua New Guinea (PNG) with no chance of settlement in Australia.
I am not sure if anyone on here has spent much time in PNG, if they have, I very much doubt they would describe it in terms of generally a safe and secure place to live.
People fleeing war or famine do not deserve to end up in a detention centre where rapes of men, women and children are taking place and beatings are common with no way of getting out of their situation.
There MUST BE a better way…
The asylum processing system in the UK is not fit for purpose and has a massive backlog which is growing daily, the Rwanda idea shows how desperate and clueless the government is in trying to solve an issue that is going to get far worse.
I thought we were going to be nice now and you’ve gone off at the deep end! I completely agree with you on all your points. The only people who will have a problem are those who have just taken out big mortgages and the government of course.
…and the Brexit vote was hugely about stemming immigration.
I would have thought parties in Rwanda would quite soon come up with a ‘recycling system’ if it’s 30k per refugee.
That’s interesting Lumbar, I wasn’t aware the policy had changed since seeing an interview with one successful asylum seeker who was now resident in Oz. He was scathing about the process and conditions. I guess it’s just another Patel/Johnson lie when they claim their’s is a World first and that they expect other countries to follow their lead.
I hve a friend who worked in PNG but I never discussed the place with him. Though the fact that he quit to work on contract in Saudi probably says a lot.
Thanks for the clarification.
I just watched a video from Phil Moorhouse A Different Bias and he takes the view that the Rwanda “policy” is merely smoke and mirrors to deflect attention away from Partygate and the Crime Minister’s other peccadilloes and party woes in the recent Tory Press polls…
I can very much see that to be the case.
Very much his modus operandi
Yes throw red meat to the base and enrage everyone else.
They are so despicable I wouldn’t be surprised if they go ahead though.
I hope it is stopped. It is sickening.
professor tim has a view…
Time to get this one out again.
The suggestion that most people arriving in small boats are economic migrants rather than genuine asylum seekers is demonstrably bunk - because the most hostile asylum system on the planet still grants ~ 75% of claims.
OK. I accept that I phrased it badly.
However, Section 24 (1) (a) of the Immigration Act 1971 creates an offence of knowingly entering the United Kingdom without leave, and provides that suspected offenders can be arrested without warrant.
I accept that the act of crossing the channel is not of itself an offence, BUT as soon as a person sets foot on UK shores in the knowledge that they do not have leave to enter, then at that moment in time, the offence is complete and is punishable by up to 6 months imprisonment, or a fine, or both. Such a person also becomes an “illegal entrant” and as such may be removed from the United Kingdom.
But Robert all that proves IMO is that it’s not a good law.
Well, be that as it may, but until such time as Parliament is petitioned with sufficient impetus to cause the law to be changed, then it is what it is.
Let us not forget that said law applies to all arrivals on UK soil, regardless of the method of transportation or the place of landing.
I would venture to suggest that most countries have similar measures in place, and that at least the UK has a system whereby the offender is brought before a court rather than just being summarily dealt with by the border officials.
but but but… they DO have leave - as outlined by @billybutcher in his useful graphic at number 3.
If their presence on UK soil was not for the purpose of seeking asylum under the 1951 Convention, I would accept your position that they have committed an arrestable offence.
Any Human Rights lawyer worth their salt would have a field day with the Chief Constable of any UK Police Force who attempted to bluster their way through the Courts with such a victim.
When did that last happen I wonder? It’s the third time in a couple of days I’ve seen this idea that if enough people say something to their MP/Parliament/ the government, things could be changed, but I’m not sure in recent times I can think of a time where public views/opinions/actions actually made a blind bit of difference. It’s a nice thought but I’m not sure it’s actually a reality anymore sadly. The whole ‘turkeys voting for Christmas’ thing. They still get the votes whether they do what people want or not. It’s quite a quandary for society I guess, democ
If sufficient people want a question asked and petition through official channels then it is supposed to be raised in parliament, where it can be dismissed. It is a sop.
