this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2024

48 points (96.2% liked)

UK Politics

3098 readers

87 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom

GreatAlbatross

flamingos

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

Deportation flights to Rwanda will take off in 10 to 12 weeks, Rishi Sunak says (www.bbc.co.uk)

submitted 7 months ago by Mex to c/uk_politics

47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 47 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] UKFilmNerd 26 points 7 months ago (2 children)

What chartered flights? Even the Rwanda airline wants nothing to do with this.

Where are all the extra judges suddenly come from? Are you pulling then off other cases like rape and murder?

No interference from Foreign courts. They're not foreign, it's the European court of which we, the UK, are a member.

Labour keeps voting against the bill! Yes, they do but you have the majority in the house of commons and the Lords. It's the Tory lords voting against this bill because they have the sense to realise how batshit this legislation is.

Rant over.

[–] Emperor 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

What chartered flights? Even the Rwanda airline wants nothing to do with this.

Given the enormous cost per person and the low numbers of people they are shifting, I am sure they could find an old school chum with a spare private jet lying about that they can hire out for an exorbitant fee.

[–] echodot 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm actually quite surprised that this hasn't happened and that they're going with commercial airlines. I wonder if even party donors are reluctant to get involved.

[–] GreatAlbatross 4 points 7 months ago

Or that it needs to be dragged out so they can say "It's so sad no commercial company will do it, guess we'll just have to use my wife's jet at a 300% markup..."

[–] ChaoticEntropy 3 points 7 months ago

One should never miss the chance to create a new gravy train.

[–] echodot 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I do think that it is fascinating that the only Tories with any kind of morals, and let's be honest any brains, are the unelected ones.

[–] Devi@kbin.social 6 points 7 months ago

The tory party used to be much further left than they are currently, More centre right, and many of those ex MPs are voting against this nonsense.

[–] Hossenfeffer 5 points 7 months ago

Once they're in the lords they needn't fear the whip and so don't need to toe the more stupid party lines.

[–] echodot 21 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Oh right so has he found an airline to take them then?

Jesus Christ what an absolute idiot we have as a prime minister. Why does he insist on this policy, literally no one likes it. It is unpopular with everyone other than the hardline right, why can these absolute morons not see that he is repeatedly shooting himself in the foot by even talking about this.

Corrupt government is one thing but incompetent is quite another. I could almost respect a corrupt but competent prime minister.

[–] Weslee@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

My guess is they know they are out in the next election, so they are getting the last few policies they've already been paid for out there.

[–] apis@beehaw.org 16 points 7 months ago

Lol no and he knows it.

Goddamn charlatan, wasting money for the sake of it, along with the rest of his party.

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 15 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I'd quite like a government that doesn't make me ashamed to be British.

In the meantime, does anyone know of any legal funds I can donate to that will help the people being targeted by this inhumane policy?

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy 3 points 7 months ago

I donate monthly to The Good Law Project

[+] Flax_vert -11 points 7 months ago (2 children)

How is it inhumane? Isn't it for the small-boat lot?

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's inhumane because even people who have legitimate claims will be deported to Rwanda against their wills, and will never be allowed to have those legitimate claims reveiwed.

[+] Flax_vert -12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Would these people be coming from france in a small boat? If so, what would be a legitimate claim?

[–] echodot 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Oh God you're one of those. Their claim is that they don't want to live in France, because let's face it who would.

They're allowed to claim in whatever country they want just because you don't like it doesn't make it illegal.

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Yes. It's obvious what you're trying to build up to with your faux-naive questions, but your second question is irrelevant. Doing something illegal does not waive your human rights, and the right to asylum is a human right. The UK cannot legitimately deport asylum seekers to Rwanda without assessing their claims. Violating someone's human rights is inhumane.

[+] Flax_vert -6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

I don't think you have that right though if you're coming from a safe country. "Fleeing" from France to the UK by paying criminal gangs to smuggle you into the country on dangerous boats which has been known to cause death, almost always for economic or sinister intentions isn't the same as fleeing the likes of Sudan for Italy via Mediterranean or any other warring country for a safe one.

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Whatever you think about it, they do have that right. Most people who currently arrive in small boats have their claims recognised as legitimate under UK law. This also means that your characterisation of them as having economic or sinister intentions is a lie.

They're not safe in France because France's asylum system is also in very poor shape. They are mostly people living in temporary camps, unable to find work and relying on charity. This is not the same thing at all, obviously, as most French people living in France, and is not safe for them. Furthermore, there is no compulsion for refugees to stay in the first 'safe' country they reach, although in fact most do.

Even if everything I said above was false (which it isn't), the British government could afford to fix the problem far more cheaply by investing in processing the claims more quickly. Processing asylum claims quickly would remove the incentive to pay people smugglers and thus break their business model. Instead, the government is spending huge sums of money - more than would be required to process those claims - on this policy. Even if it does work, it will be more expensive than just processing the claims, quickly.

[–] Sarahw@mastodon.green 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

@frankPodmore @Flax_vert
Your point about France isn't quite right. France accepts way more refugees than the UK and those accepted are looked after.
However, many more refugees pass through France and it's these people who are treated appallingly, beaten by the police, frequently having tents and possessions removed.

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, it was the police trashing the camps that I was thinking of when I was talking about the conditions there being unsafe.

[–] Sarahw@mastodon.green 2 points 7 months ago

@frankPodmore
Yes the police are brutes, completely out of control.
The refugees are already living in shocking conditions in the camps, although volunteers do their best.
It's an appalling situation, people are desperate.

[–] Flax_vert -5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Australia did the same thing and it worked, simply sending them back.

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 7 points 7 months ago

That's not the same thing, then, is it?

[–] boogetyboo@aussie.zone 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

'worked'?

What we've done and are doing in Australia is fucked. What is wrong with you?

[–] Flax_vert -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

What's happening with it?

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Australia placed asylum seekers in an island detention centres with inhumane conditions. Is that what you want to hear? To validate your opinion and agreement to the Rwanda bill? The UK Supreme Court ruled that Rwanda is not even a safe place. Do you see Rwanda like the Australian detention centre because you are a piece of shit? Do you have any more sealioning questions to validate how much of a piece of shit you are who is no worse than smugglers abusing asylum seekers? The Rwanda bill is not even popular among the British when polled except for pieces of shit. Is that the answer you want to hear?

[–] boogetyboo@aussie.zone 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Nice try, you grotty little person.

[–] Flax_vert 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Says the one who wants to watch children drown in the sea because they came in unregulated boats.

[–] boogetyboo@aussie.zone 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Such compassion. So genuine. You're a credit to the human race.

[–] Flax_vert 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You literally want people to have a reason to get into flimsy boats with their children and drown in the English channel.

[–] boogetyboo@aussie.zone 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Totally. Yep.

[–] Flax_vert 0 points 7 months ago

How do you live with yourself?

[–] steeznson@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is true. Australia managed to completely stop small boat arrivals. However their deportation scheme was even more harsh than the UK/Rawanda proposals. From what I understand people who arrived by boat there were detained pretty much indefinitely on an island detention centre. I think they might have ended the policy because it was so brutal. Not sure that politicians would be able to do that here without a public outcry.

Interestingly, Australia is consistently one of the most pro-immigration countries in the world, and has been for the past 10+ years. I read an article in the Economist that suggested people were more happy with immigration if they believed their borders were secure.

[–] Flax_vert 3 points 7 months ago

I guess it makes sense if they have safe and legal routes, then there's not much harm in punishing those who arrive illegally. The Rwanda policy does seem more humane than this, so that's a good thing.

[–] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy 2 points 7 months ago

You can "think" what you like. international law disagrees with you

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 4 points 7 months ago

"isn't it for the small-boat lot" you literally use this phrasing to dehumanize the people that you're arguing are not being treated inhumanely

[–] Hol 15 points 7 months ago

Empty flights from a military base with no press allowed, guaranteed.

[–] IbnLemmy 13 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Is there anyway of making money when this eventually does Not happen?

[–] Emperor 3 points 7 months ago

You likely won't get good odds from a bookie unless they suspect the government will get one or two there by hook or by crook.

[–] GreatAlbatross 2 points 7 months ago

Piers M*rgan seems to have a way

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 5 points 7 months ago

This cunt never had a mandate and needs to call an election now.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 4 points 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The first flights deporting asylum seekers to Rwanda will take off in 10 to 12 weeks Rishi Sunak has announced - missing his original spring target.

Last week, peers demanded two changes to the bill - for an independent monitoring committee to be put in place and for exemptions for Afghans who'd assisted the British military.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey said: "No amount of soundbites or spin can change the fact that the Conservatives' Rwanda scheme is a colossal failure.

This ping pong between the two Houses of Parliament could go on until either the government concedes and makes concessions, or peers give up on their suggested amendments - a process which could go on until late into the night.

Effectively, the legislation would drastically limit the grounds for legal challenges to the Rwanda scheme and it gives ministers the power to disregard some human rights law.

The scheme was first introduced on 14 April 2022 by then-prime minister Boris Johnson, but no asylum seeker has yet been sent to Rwanda - a landlocked country in central Africa - 4,000 miles (6,500km) from the UK.

The original article contains 1,008 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 81%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] peg@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

He's a tiny cunt and he'll be gone in a few months.

[–] GreatAlbatross 2 points 7 months ago

Election in 11 weeks then, it seems!

[–] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 7 months ago

Back in the House of Lords later on Monday evening, peers decided to drop the demand on Afghan veterans [getting an excemption]

This is what you get for serving the empire. It will chew you up and spit you out.