Is this the End of the Rwanda Plan?
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 04. 2024
- Use code tldrnews at the link below to get an exclusive 60% off an annual Incogni plan: incogni.com/tldrnews
Let's take a look at a brief history of the Rwanda plan, what has happened in the last week, and whether the House of Lords have actually pretty much killed the plan.
🎞 TikTok: / tldrnews
💡 Got a Topic Suggestion? - forms.gle/mahEFmsW1yGTNEYXA
Support TLDR on Patreon: / tldrnews
Donate by PayPal: tldrnews.co.uk/funding
Our mission is to explain news and politics in an impartial, efficient, and accessible way, balancing import and interest while fostering independent thought.
TLDR is a completely independent & privately owned media company that's not afraid to tackle the issues we think are most important. The channel is run by a small group of young people, with us hoping to pass on our enthusiasm for politics to other young people. We are primarily fan sourced with most of our funding coming from donations and ad revenue. No shady corporations, no one telling us what to say. We can't wait to grow further and help more people get informed. Help support us by subscribing, engaging and sharing. Thanks!
It's pretty funny to see Sunak staking his whole leadership on a bill that isn't going to work.
Except that the bill just passed yesterday so nobody knows yet what the outcome would be?
@@benthomas9853 I think they meant "work" as in actually alleviate immigration problems/not put the economy into the gutter from the insane costs. Not whether or not a plane actually flies to Rwanda carrying a few people.
Does Starmer have a plan ?
@@realname4401 I think it's fairly obvious it won't work.
@@benthomas9853 All this will do is force the ECHR into action (which is basically a guarantee). The odds of losing depend on the case brought, but for the number of people they plan to send, it's high. This puts leaving ECHR back in the sights of the crazies. And if the UK is actually so batshit as to go through with it, it'll be a shit show. It would instantly eliminate multiple treaties and UK memberships to international organisations it would either be unable to rejoin or have to renegotiate a treaty for, which the Tories are bad at at the best of times.
This is all without taking into account other factors like: Sanctions on airlines or worst case litigation for essentially human trafficking, post-removal lawsuits possible forcing the UK to retake migrants, the economic costs of the plan, the likelihood of anyone in Rwanda properly processing claims (a requirement under the plan) and if it's even a deterrent at all. It's also a giant incentive to drive migration even further underground and into the hands of gangs. It basically amounts to elevating your dumbest campaign slogan to policy.
TLDR: this might be the dumbest thing any European government has done in a while, only losing against his predecessor's mini-budget.
Sunak is so out of touch that he thinks this £500,000,000 ego trip will win him the upcoming election.
The Tories sending asylum seekers to Rwanda honestly sounds like satire
American here,
Why is he so hellbent on this policy with that specific African nation?
Oh Rishi knows he isnt going to win, this is about proving to the party that he was a better PM than Boris or Truss to stave off potential leadership challenges from either of them after the election.
@@0fficialdregs honestly I think it's part sunk cost fallacy and part deflection. This is his flagship "achievement" that he can point to, like Boris "getting brexit done", and he also uses it to distract from all the real issues that he's done literally nothing to address (or is actively causing / exacerbating)
@@0fficialdregs because it's so shocking it d+controls the conversation and draws attention away from the real issues that the givt has been failing on (foreign affairs, economy etc)
So people thought Rwanda was unsafe, and the government's response was to pass a law requiring people to treat it as safe? How is this allowed? You can't legislate facts.
Of course you can, it's done all the time.
Yes, well, the courts might agree with you. But it's still an interesting attempt, because it raises some interesting questions: does reality matter? Does truth matter? Or is it all just subjective and there are no reality, truth or facts and the only thing that matters is power? Who imposes their will on everyone else? It goes to the heart of modern day politics.
How would they ever repeal the law if the law states they have to treat it as a safe country? Wouldn't the attempt at repealing the law break the law? Does this mean Rwanda is declared safe for all time?
@@injest1928 well tecnicly not.
You could get around with "oh its not nessesary anymore because independet sources have deemed rwanda safe." or some BS like that.
@@injest1928Parliament is sovereign and can contradict its previous decisions.
The irony of raising concerns about the lords' democratic credentials at a time when they're trying to amend a bill that deliberately prevents our democratic institutions from disagreeing with our government on whether Rwanda is a safe country.
I'll bet the supreme court will just rule that it's unlawful to have done this, just like before, and throw the bill out
@@Jon-ov4nc Almost certainly, yes! If the first flight does go ahead, I'm sure it'll have very few people on it
@@Jon-ov4nc I doubt it. Parliamentary supremacy means that the judiciary is limited to checking parliament's homework against itself.
The UK seems to have fallen into this weird belief that democracy is just about voting. I first noticed it with the weird pro Brexit stuff by many Remain voters, thinking the UK should be bound to something they didn't agree with just because there was a non binding referendum.
@@deek0146so the UK doesn't have an unwritten constitution? It has no constitution at all?
So far, it is estimated to cost £1,800,000 per refugee sent to Rwanda. Also the UK has received 15 refugees FROM Rwanda, for free.
That’s an absurd amount! How on earth is that economically viable?
@@thailux6494 small price to pay for conservatives if they think it means less immigrants... even if one of their biggest complaints is how much money they have to spend on immigrants
@@lonefish8128literally no actual conservative person in Britain believes the Tory party actually cares or has an idea of how to genuinely reduce immigration to a lower level. Anybody who really cares about immigration being too high will vote reform and anybody who doesn’t think it’s an issue is voting labour/lib dem/ SNP
Sauce?
@@lonefish8128 The Tories LOVE immigration, they unfortunately have to put up a smokescreen for their base. The last 14 years of immigration policy would suggest they love immigration for more than Labour.
The Rwanda "plan" is one of the stupidest public policy ideas I've seen in decades and shows conclusively that the Tories are simply out of ideas, morals, and comptence. It is an embarrassment.
It's the tories you're talking about,The fuck are you expecting from them aside from their endless stupidy.
that's exactly what australia government did
@@lotusfear9250 And it worked
@@thejollygreendragon8394 well, it's not like they are pretending to be bastion of human right, or democracy defender, or any buzz word in the world stage while also did exactly the opposite, aka, hypocrite, like western countries
i guess australian can get away with this
@@lotusfear9250 The UK government is copying what the Australia government has successfully implemented now for a number of years, as it has plenty much stopped the stream of boats arriving on Australia shores
Call it what you wish, but both the present Labor government and the conservative opposition implement it, because, that is what the voting majority of Australians want, and both sides of government understand that to overturn the policy, would mean they would be tossed out at the first possible election
Regardless of your views on immigration, it is absolutely wild that Sunak is pushing for a bill that forces everyone to agree with him. Will his next bill be to force everyone to recognize him as the Prime Minister for life?
Although you say that with a tinge of humour, that's exactly what people like Putin have done so we shouldn't get too complacent.
No; it will be to ban any references to him being defeated in a party leadership election by a candidate, who was herself defeated by a head of lettuce.
If you think it's authoritarian that parliament has a final say, then I am afraid and sorry for having to tell you that, under this measure, New Zealand and Israel are too. You should flee to America where the law of the land is decided by unaccountable supreme justices.
Imagine proudly holding a press conference for a housing project we’re paying for that is in a different continent for people that aren’t British citizens. Meanwhile, our own citizens have the longest NHS waiting times, cost of living crisis and failing infrastructure.
The plan is to break the whole system we live in. Some still not getting it & why ...
Yep only the racist Tories and reformists are celebrating this.
We need to stop funding the world at the expense of the UK.
It has echoes of China's "great leap forward"
Except that the housing project costs about 1/10 of what it would cost here.
What about a lack of housing here?
I note the Sunak's five conditions didn't mention flights to Rwanda - it said "Stop small boats". Flying a few poor unfortunates to Rwanda isn't guaranteed to stop the small boats.
Imagine leaving the EU and losing the Dublin agreement, where you can no longer send asylum seekers back to France. 😅
Then threatening courts to accept false claims of a safe Rwanda to get things done
Your asylum application gets refused if you come from France, and rawanda is one of the safest country in the world
Impossible challenge: Tory voters voting for their own interests
They never took any migrants anyway
you british were indeed intelligent enough to vote NO 😂 😂
Logic note: They have agreed to send a TOTAL of 300 to Ruanda, the PM said the 300 have been selected, THEREFORE this is NOT a deterrent to anyone comming here now.
Its only a deterrent to asylum seekers with a time machine who want to apply for aslilum IN THE PAST.
Also 270 came yesterday.
You can bet your bollocks to a barn dance that this will be scaled up as soon as the initial kinks are taken out.
@@dewaard3301 with how Parliament works, no
@@dewaard3301😂😂😂
Mine are safe, not sure about yours...@@dewaard3301
As someone who is concerned about illegal migration i dont like the Rwanda plan, its too costly and clearly hard to implement. It isnt affecting the wider issue either, its all just tory posturing and blagging and no real solution.
I have mixed feelings, as on its own its irrelevant but may be a pioneer project that would be used to eliminate legal hurdles and sabotage.
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 That's exactly what it's used for and was never designed to combat illegal immigration, according to the head of the Conservative Home. They want to eliminate any method of legally challenging the govt, by anyone (not just asylum seekers) thereby moving towards an authoritarian semi police state. This, if true, is however insane as they'd be arming the next govt with extraordinary powers whilst that govt is unlikely to be themselves. When/if Labour uses these powers, the current govt and those who cheer it on now would be accomplices.
@@tt-ew7rx Either way the UK is turning into authoritarian country, as due to migrants it already had to implement laws on knives on curb free speech in case when it may offend Muslim which don't end well...
@@tt-ew7rxtake off the tinfoil hat - it’s a moronic policy from politicians who care more about optics, slogans and clinging on to power for their own financial benefit than solving real issues. What we’re witnessing is the pitiful death throes of an incompetent government about to be ousted, rather than the establishment of a police state lol.
I would think that many will hide. What is the solution and since the ECHR is paying its members huge amounts to destroy the society; prosperity, cohesion, justice, that was fought for in WW2.
The irony when Sunak expects Rwanda to honour its treaty with the UK when the UK blatantly dishonoured their obligations under the ECHR...
The ECHR appears to be your problem. The question is why do European adults in the ECHR behave in a way that is systematically bankrupting your country, destroying social cohesion? (all of which effects your poor families the most).
Other Euro countries need brexit to fail in some way, off load its criminals too, and the UK fits the bill.
When you get into a full war with Russia, plus internal threats....
How will this serve as a deterrent to those who’ve crossed deserts and war zones before they get on a dangerous boat, who don’t watch BBC news?
The tories:Good question.
It won't for many since they'll have been sold on the idea and led by smugglers anyway. Those guys are already paid anyway, why should they care where the emigrants actually end up?
@@abydosianchulac2 But even before that, if the refugees are willing to got through hell to get to a boat, the extremely remote chance of a flight wouldn’t matter, even if they even know about it in the first place.
My biggest fear is that sunak has set such a terrible precedence to forcefully pass an illegal legislation. This has totally screwed the uk legislation system and the uk may end up as a country of elected dictatorship.
This has been the law of the land since time memorial. If this is the metric by which you measure elected dictatorship, then Great Britain has been one since inception of parliament, including New Zealand and Israel.
I've just realised that one way to 'Cut the NHS waiting list' is by not letting GPs sign off people who are suicidal - efficient and brutal. But he was a hedge fund manager who made a huge profit out of the financial crash of 2008/9, so no surprise there then.
They did a similar thing with the ADHD waiting lists where they introduced a random long questionnaire with a deadline to be filled out by people on the list, and failure to complete it would result in removal from the list.. At that time I was 4 years in and fortunately managed to get it done, but only just..
If anything the Rwanda scheme swayed my perspective about UK rejoining Europe.
Now I think that the UK is not only unreliable but actually a danger for international laws and for European doctrines.
This Rwanda scheme is the confirmation that UK must stand alone for the foreseeable future.
Probably until their people actively decide to force their government to follow international laws.
While I personally much prefer the idea of using push backs, like Greece does, due to its effectiveness, I really don't see anything wrong with what the government have done, the excessive financial cost aside. International law is voluntary, it isn't applied without the consent of a nation's domestic parliament. The sovereign right to reject foreign interference in national affairs is paramount, even if it comes at the expense of relations with the EU.
@@maxisussex Ok, but *there will* be consequences. For example, I can see Russia (and other countries) applying the same logic when it invaded Ukraine. "international law is voluntary"
@@dyawr Well, the Russians clearly aren't following international law and they haven't faced any real consequences for their actions. Greece if breaking international law with its well known push backs. Several other EU countries are looking into doing something similar. I don't really see what position the EU would consider itself in to be lecturing to the UK and it isn't like the non-EU countries that matter will do anything either. If the government passes legislation that overrides an aspect of international law it had previously agreed to, then that international law no longer applies and not following it is therefore not illegal.
@@maxisussex The Russian president has an international arrest warrant on his name and the country is under heavy sanctions, that have further stiffled its economy. It's GDP/capita is currently lower than any EU country as a result. How is that no consequence?
@@maxisussex My replies are shadow banned. Russia has faced *heavy* consequences for its actions.
Rishi talks about sending people to Rwanda like little Robin Arryn talked about throwing people through the moon door
lol
"Make them fly!"
I hereby declare the moondoor safe.
As mister Poirot would say, the psychology of the bill doesn't hold. People who risk their lives multiple times to come to the UK would not be deterred by the possibility of being send to Rwanda.
Correction: the small chance of the possibility of being sent to Rwanda.
Some reliable polling company should poll existing tory party members (not just MPs who live in the Westminster bubble) about what priority Rwanda plan has for them.
This Bill is a joke, the Government isn't serious about this issue at all.
Is this the End of the Rwanda Plan? No. The backup plan involves naming an area in the West Midlands 'Rwanda' and then proceeding with the plan.
Really needs to emphasise that the treaty with Rwanda also allows Rwanda to send people to the UK also, especially people they receive that break their laws
ZERO SEATS!!!
This is such a bizarre plan because immigration is often framed as costing the government money, but I have to imagine its substantially more expensive to ship people half way around the world for processing. European nations are always fighting against their own laws on immigration, they don't allow pushbacks so they have to bribe Libya and Turkey to keep migrants from embarking to Europe in the first place, they don't want immigrants using their court systems fairly, so they ship them to countries with less fair court systems.
It's funny that Sunak can just pass a UK law declaring Rwanda a safe country, as if it will automatically make it true. Why not just make a law declaring the whole world safe, then there will be no more need for asylum?
Once more, will this bill apply to everyone or just people of color?? And if it is for everyone, will there be a plan of Ukrainian??
Hope so. Its a cruel policy but even under its on terms it doesnt make sense since the UK has to accept unwanted Rwandan's in return. Lastly, to be a deterrent it has to be a horrible place but what democratic nation that is supposed to value human life sends people to an unsafe country? Rwanda isnt safe.
Shouldn't you know a democratic nation value its citizens? And in case of being flooded should you know... protect their citizens?
"Unaffordable"? AFAIK it's expected to cost 1M8 per refugee... Why don't you simply give half the money to the person in exchange to leave the UK? I bet they'll gladly do it and be accepted by any EU country (rich people generally are...) And you'll save 50% of the costs. A win-win situation. It's an utter madness.
It will happen if Sunak thinks ignoring the courts will gsin him votes. It wont.
I find it pretty funny that people always complain about the US being inhumane on immigration and then you get stuff like this, sending migrants to RWANDA.
There’s definitely no space in the UK
I'm reading in Irish papers that 80% of its migrants now come from GB via NI, which may lead to calls from unlikely quarters for a hard border before the Republic's elections in June.
Interesting! So the republic of Ireland would be pushing for a hard border? Did they say if the migrants were born in Britain or is through Britain from a third country?
Sounds like Ireland would be wise to have that hard border
Just a thought
@@MrAlistairheath The Irish Justice Minister announced the source of the 80% yesterday but some senators said the GB source is higher than 80%. There will be calls to close the border as some western Irish villages and towns have been transformed overnight by migrant men.
Or reunification!
@@cathallynch8269 Reunification!, Yes, a reunified Ireland with hard Borders and as a member of NATO, would be a happy prosperous and secure Nation
Given the Bibby Stockholm barge moored at Weymouth holds more people, perhaps sticking to flights to Weymouth might have been more sensible and cost effective? There's a helicopter landing pad near by for Sunak to visit.
The crossbench peer who was the last sponsor of Amendment 3 (Lord Anderson of Ipswich) wanted to move to double insistence, but Labour had already publicly stated that they weren't going to block the eventual passage of the Bill - so Lord Anderson had to back down because his motion wouldn't have won that division.
Would Labour have blocked it under previous party Leadership? The more I read about, listen to, or watch UK-centered political stories, the more I think Starmer is a LINO (Labour in name only). I know it's not the same as until recently even your Tories were more left-leaning than our Republicans, and Labour would actually be the "radical" left here...but TBH, some of what I've seen (including the Rwanda plan not being blocked) reminds me of how the Clinton administration swung the Democratic party to the right - establishing them as more center-oriented. (Crime Bill, specifically.)
@@sujimtangerines No Labour leadership would break convention and move to block any bill in the House of Lords because that would give Conservatives an excuse an excuse to do exactly the same thing with Labour bills if/when they get into Government.
Commons Supremacy, as the elected Chamber, is a long standing constitutional position that is in both major parties interests.
If anything with Corbyn being further Left than the current Labour leadership, this would have been even more important since his more radical policies would have even more risk of being blocked in that way.
Both Corbyn's and Starmer's Labour have/had commitments to reform and/or abolish the House of Lords though, not really that different on these things.
Blaming Labour as if Labour had majority in the House of Lord🙄
So, the economy is in pieces, the national defence seriously neglected at the time the Russians are off the rails, the NHS severely damaged. However, Rishi Sunak does not give a sod a pushes his flagship policy (or only policy?) of sending some refugees to Rwanda. Which planet does he live on?
The UK government is clearly drawing inspiration and lessons, both positive and negative, from Australia's controversial asylum policies in developing its own Rwanda plan.
Both Australia and the UK claim their policies aim to deter dangerous migrant journeys and save lives, but there is absolutely no evidence that these objectives have been achieved.
However, the UK government still sees Australia as a model to emulate, not as an equivalent.
The despite the fact of high costs associated with these offshore processing schemes which have also shown to be ineffective and a waste of public funds.
Australia's asylum seeker policies have indeed been a significant waste of taxpayer money, costing billions without delivering the intended results.
The UK government is evidently choosing the "cruel" and "inhumane" aspects of Australia's asylum policies, rather than adopting a more humane approach.
Human rights groups have criticized both Australia and the UK's policies as "cruel" and "detrimental" to refugee rights, disrupting access to asylum procedures.
The human rights impact of Australia's offshore processing policies has been extremely damaging, with high rates of mental illness, trauma, and even deaths among detainees.
We all know that the first plane will have less than 50 on, and around 10 times that number will come over in the days that follow.
I really can't understand this entire scheme anyway. Why can't the same thing that would be done in Rwanda be done in the UK?
The UK official definition of "asylum seeker" is ridiculously permissive.
The Rwandan definition is based more on common sense.
Therefore the Rwandan definition is "unfair", according to the UK court of appeal.
European airspace can simply refuse to allow these flights to overfly their airspace, which seems like the simplest workaround without getting into the legalities.
That's right, because planes cant fly around things. I also understand that charted flights will now have their right of flyover revoked?
@@jackster2568 Planes can fly around things, but it will add substantially to flight times avoiding all EU airspace. Like, hours of time. They'll have to skirt all the way around into the Atlantic even to avoid the Canaries, for example, which are Spanish territory.
@@Jablicek All EU airspace? What are you on about? Canaries? How far do you think territorial air space extends to?
And what, is the EU going to revoke the right of flyover? NATO?
I'm so sick of this channel and all the "informed" viewers. Everything is a simple solution to a problem, and there are plenty of problems to straight forward plans.
why would they? It doesn't bother me as an European at all, you can fly all non-whites into Rwanda for all I care.
Just starting watching this and oop its been passed
A video on how the different upper houses work in westminister systems work would be interesting.
It's sad to hear
”refugees” risking harm should not be a legitimate reason to let them illegally stay
According to the Irish the bill is working very well. I wonder if they have just saved the Tory`s.
We went through so much in Libya we were kidnapped and we got here and now the world doesn't have a solution to go from the UK to rwanda😢😢😢😢
Still do not understand why Rwanda?
Denmark has some of the strictest immigration and asylum policies in the world. I see no reason why the UK can't follow the footsteps of our Scandinavian cousin.
We use to send them back to France due to Dublin agreement , now we can’t due to Brexit
Because no one in government wants to change our immigration policy, the Tories keep it as a wedge issue to attack Labour. This Tory government has been more pro mass immiration than Labour could dream of, Tony Blair would be proud of them.
Most people speak English not Danish. That is why asylum seekers go to England and not Denmark
@Toundryda did I say that stupid ?
@Toundryda look, most people speak English since it is the lingua franca of the world. Therefore, they will want to go to English speaking countries since there will be no langauge barrier and thus it will be easier for them to find jobs. Get it ? I was simply stating why they prefer English speaking countries to non English ones to refute the point that denemark has laws that make it anti asylum seeking. If that was the case, england could simply adopt these laws but things are not that simple
I've to Rwanda, lived there for a couple of years. It's a nice place. The real deterrent is that it's the end of the road.
Not since Sunak announced the 12 months UC claim limit for job seekers. I think by then it was obvious.
They really be thinking they can get off scot-free with this.
~1:30 English judges don't use gavels
Phew! The cactus is back from the brink.
Oh yes, and that was a useful video too.
I'd really be interested in a ranking of the current UK politics in a EU politics spectrum. If the UK would re-integrate into the EU, where would it stand politically ? Which EU countries would be their possible allies ? Hungary ? Slovakia ? Maybe Poland (although that's trending back to the center) ? In which direction would the UK influence the EU political spectrum ? Sry, I'm not a native english speaker, maybe I'm missing something here...
From even centrish Polish perspective UK so called "hate speech laws" would look like something bordering political trials, so even modest shift here would not be an issue...
@@useodyseeorbitchute9450 sry, I don't know what "would not be an issue" means. With Tusk leaning towards the EU and Duda leaning towards more of an authoritarian-Hungarian position, what does "not being an issue" mean?
@@rashomon351 I mean that either way, UK politics on all non-economic issues looks like left with authoritarian tendencies to Polish, so if UK gets on with our populist right, it should be more than happy with our centrist coalition. From the onset of Russian invasion on Ukraine let's say that Polish populist right don't get well with Orban.
The different PMs, the different Home Secretaries and yet the same Rwanda plan
Even imagining myself as a die hard tory, I don't think the Lord's 10F amendment is unreasonable
4:10 why didnt they do that for the internal market bill?
Rwanda? RWANDA?? Have they really been declared a "safe country"? I know it's been a while, but I can't be the only person that immediately thinks of Hutu vs Tutsi. Is 30 years post-GENOCIDE long enough for a country to be that free of tension?
This is one of the reasons the Commons needs expert oversight. The way the Lords is appointed needs to be reformed (reducing political influence, maybe using our extensive system of chartered institutes and learned societies to make nominations), but the past few years have shown why we need a brake on unhinged populist governments. I want a commission appointed upper house with more teeth.
Gee if only we had a system where families passed their positions down to their sons ensuring continuity and stability...
here are the solutions. Repeal the 1911 and 1999 Acts.
The REAL question is whether Labour will actually scrap the bill if Sunak succeeds. Australian Labour conveniently forgot to withdraw Abbot's original Stop the Boats Policy as shipping all the illegal migrants to Nauru starved right wingers of their most potent election issue. If Rishi somehow manages to ship the migrants to Rwanda and do it affordably, I can easily see Starmer choosing to 'forget' about the policy to maintain Labour control for the next generation.
Nice to hear that if you don't like the truth you can just legislate against it.
In a word, *NO* !
Insistnece?
It's British for ... XD
I think the only explanation of this policy is that the Tories have become so ideologically bonkers, that they just go for the cruellest thing they can get away with. This plan isn´t designed to deal with the situation, it´s designed to inflict cruelty for its own sake, even economically it doesn´t make any sense.
There are other, better, more humane ways to deal with it, i.e hire more border staff, process people directly in other countries. Where possible, we should also open places where people can apply for assylum before they come to the UK.
Likewise, for people who are coming for economic reasons, I do believe we should open more legal routes. Currently just increasing the restrictions is adding to the problem, it´s forcing people underground and encourageing them to use people smugglers. The thing is even working on half the minimum wage in the black market, Albanians can make more money than they can in their own country, just tightening the restrictions won´t work.
It would be possible to greatly reduce illegal immigration by hiring lots more border staff, customs officers etc, but what some people don´t understand is there is always a cost in doing this, i.e you would have to raise taxes, borrow money, or cut something else and I think that people need to question whether reducing migration is as important as funding schools and the NHS.
So remind me: how does sending 20 people a month to Rwanda stop 5000 people a month crossing the channel in small boats?
the US should implement the Rwanda plan :p
No vid on visit in Poland? 😢
2:34 Translation: We don't want our supply of cheap labor threatened!
Reminder that a large government is the source of all evil.
Protracted Parliamentary Ping Pong…
They are sendind a few hundred to Rwanda. Anyone who thinks this is worth the cost or that this will act as any form of deterrent is completely out of touch with reality.
Expected to now cost taxpayers half a billion £ , which Sunak says we will soon be sending regular full flights. Oddly Rwanda says the agreement & its capacity is for 200 , so that's 2 plane fulls. Be cheaper paying £100,000 each to 5,000 of them to go home for the same price. Not to mention endless court appeals & its just a matter of time before someone gets k1lled in Rwanda leading to millions in compensation & them all returning to the UK. Average household £1,650 worse of next yr paying for all this mess , not to mention further rising inflation , council tax & bills etc . Well done Sunak & the Con -servative party on doing a marvelous job!👋bravo👋bravo 👋
a 8 min video with a 2 minute ad is insane
Can we send Sunak to Rwanda? one way!
For £1.8m, I reckon some Brits would be willing to give them their house ... Actually is that an option Happy do it for £1m - surely an asylum seeker can survive for life on the remaining £800k?
Give me 1.8 million I will leave the country
insistence spelled incorrectly
This idea never seemed to have any logic applied to it. How would sending random asylum seekers thousands of miles away even make any sense anyway
Have you seen crime numbers?
@@dewaard3301 Good try dog whistler
@@realname4401 Yes, everything that you don't agree must be some secret message of some evil conspiracy theory...
@@dewaard3301lol nice try
@@dewaard3301Sending away ~300 people doesn't prevent anyone from comitting crimes.
This plan is ridiculous and wont work even if its implemented. Its also just incredibly cruel.
Could a member of the military refuse orders to fly to Rwanda? The 'Government' I suppose could set up an undercover air transport like Conair to do its dirty work but what air route would it take given that it would be trafficking? Someone might even record the sound of pistol shots from behind the transit sheds on arrival.
Politics in the 2020s: a legacy is hinging on legislation getting passed, not legislation showing any results.
the Rwandan govt is laughing counting the pounds they receive regardless of whether "asylum seekers" are on the plane or not they still get paid 😂😂
Why do we absolutely need to keep whoever pays the smugglers?
It won't solve the migrant crisis, it'll cost too much money and will only force the government to raise taxes AGAIN in order to support it in the long run and ultimately - even if Rwanda was deemed safe enough, and the bill does go through - how long before Rwanda decides that it doesn't want to honour the treaty anymore because many of the same problems that illegal migration brings to the UK start to take root in Rwanda and it's citizens decide to push back against it? The best thing Sunak could've done (too late now though) was simply admit that it's not going to happen and find an alternative, he even could've spinned it that it would've cost the British public too much money, but then again, he's an unelected PM so yeah, it's just a dead horse at this point.
At 1:20 when you say “the plan was challenged by the European court of human rights” why is the figure in the graphic accompanying this statement wearing an EU rosette? The ECHR is not an EU body. Perpetuating this misconception is unhelpful at best, and at worst feeds into leave/remain partisanship.
Actually rovannda is a more better place to live than Lundddon, less money and more luxurious when you think of cost of living crisis of London.
The hubris in a bill that would require civil servants to ignore the ECHR.
Just not let them in, problem solved.
I doubt a lot of plane companies want to be sued for human trafficking.
hey, got to replace all those people from the little incident in the 90's!
No sure how it would stop the small boat human trafficking.
Its so funny to me that we all grew up with stories of tyrannical leaders, and statements of fact being enforced by mechanisms the people cannot oppose by any means.
How have we waltzed into the jaws of this dragon?
How are people still able to support the tory party at all?
The fact that tory support is not absolutely zero will forever leave me believing in miracles - or at least whatever the opposite of a miracle is, considering they're usually good things.
No, it won't happen. Only leaving the ECHR and taking the boats back will work.
It probably will.
I quite like Rwanda as a country and would actually consider setting foot there one day (unlike the vast majority of African nations... though it should be noted I travel solo or with a lesbian couple and regularly say things that make countries with blasphemy laws an unsafe place to be); but no-one should be forced there for the "crime" of being a refugee. I would however be in favour of us opening a specialist immigration centre in Rwanda that let's people apply for immigration to the UK with refugee status from Rwanda for those who don't feel able to safely claim asylum in Rwanda. It'd keep a chunk of sub saharan African asylum seekers off of dangerous small boats and away from the people trafficking that gets them to the northern coast of Africa and France. I'd also be in favour of free commercial flights to Rwanda for refugees who feel England is too in hospitable- because its likely cheaper that housing them here while they break the law (dumb laws about earning as a refugee are still laws) or otherwise to raise funds for a further trip...
how many houses could be made for the money this plan would cost?
Britain and western world lecture India for doing NRC in order to remove illegal immigrants living in India. But now, how they are themselves removing the immigrants from Britain to Rawanda, this is called Hypocrisy😂
Hi , American here.
WHY DID YOU THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA????
Please always remind people this was a policy Johnson pulled out of his a**e during the scandal hit dying days of his premiership.
Elected government is a stretch for Sunak
Such a waste of money.