MrLongbeard wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:01 am they're hoping that once word gets out that as soon as you land in blighty you'll be shipped to Rwanda that the number of people trying to come here will drop, they're not really expecting to send 1000's over there.
£120M for even a 1000 makes it a bargain ... Err ... Doesn't it? ??? (And that's not including ongoing costs and new costs incurred - border staff, flights, support staff, legal, etc)
Have to wonder what current costs actually are?
According to the BBC report, the facility in Rwanda has space for around 100 people and will be able to process up to 500 per year. An earlier report gave an estimate of £1.2 billion per year should the scheme go ahead in full
Boris: driven by our shared humanitarian impulse
BBC: At the UN last year, the UK demanded investigations into alleged killings, disappearances and torture.
Yambo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 12:50 pm
Meanwhile, UNESCO are concerned that the UK will allow women and children refugees from Ukraine to be lodged with single men.
What a sad fucking country the UK must appear to be to the rest of the world.
UNESCO saying that doesn't mean the UK is doing that, just maybe the UK is checking and that's why it's taking such an unacceptably long time to grant visas.
Yambo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 12:50 pm
Meanwhile, UNESCO are concerned that the UK will allow women and children refugees from Ukraine to be lodged with single men.
What a sad fucking country the UK must appear to be to the rest of the world.
It doesn't even look good from inside it.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Voltaire
Yambo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 12:50 pm
Meanwhile, UNESCO are concerned that the UK will allow women and children refugees from Ukraine to be lodged with single men.
What a sad fucking country the UK must appear to be to the rest of the world.
UNESCO saying that doesn't mean the UK is doing that, just maybe the UK is checking and that's why it's taking such an unacceptably long time to grant visas.
Yep, that's what it'll be alright: due diligence, Boris is well known for his attention to detail.
It makes perfect sense, they're hoping that once word gets out that as soon as you land in blighty you'll be shipped to Rwanda that the number of people trying to come here will drop, they're not really expecting to send 1000's over there.
Or that's my take on it anyway.
Yup, that does make sense.
I am so glad I found somewhere else to live. Hopefully by the time that LePenn changes this country to be like the UK (France is generally 20 odd years behind!) I'll be too old to notice
Your snow-white eyrie is not exactly one of the banlieues, is it?
No. But if she gets in it affects everyone in the country
Life is for living. Buy the shoes. Eat the cake. Ride the bikes. Just, ride the bikes!!
I am so glad I found somewhere else to live. Hopefully by the time that LePenn changes this country to be like the UK (France is generally 20 odd years behind!) I'll be too old to notice
Your snow-white eyrie is not exactly one of the banlieues, is it?
No. But if she gets in it affects everyone in the country
But prolly some more than others. She won't be sending you back to the bled, habibti.
Your snow-white eyrie is not exactly one of the banlieues, is it?
No. But if she gets in it affects everyone in the country
But prolly some more than others. She won't be sending you back to the bled, habibti.
I have no interest in being sent back to the UK either!!! Sadly I can't apply for nationality until late October, and it could take 2+ years to be granted. But if she gets in, there's a good chance I won't get it
Thank fck for the Irish passport - might not help me stay in France but at least I shouldn't have to go back to the UK!!!
Life is for living. Buy the shoes. Eat the cake. Ride the bikes. Just, ride the bikes!!
Sending refugees to Rwanda has been tried before - by Israel.
The reasons it was stopped do not make happy reading. Sending people into the hands of traffickers, refugees penniless on Rwandan streets etc etc. It appears that the money was happily accepted but the obligations weren't. Within a short space of time it was estimated that ~18 actually remained there.
Treating refugees like pieces in a game of Snakes and Ladders is pretty shameful.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Voltaire
You do realise all of this is a huge ruse to take the heat of Boris and “Partygate”? The timing of the announcement is no coincidence- but it will allow everyone to froth at the mouth for a few weeks - until the government admit it is unworkable. Priti Patel is involved so absolutely nothing is going to happen.
What will happen in the next few days is Boris will get 3-4 more Covid fines - maybe even up to 10,000 GBP - but it will all go unnoticed.
You are all being played
The UK government has introduced new regulations under which they can rule that an asylum claim is inadmissible. This means the Home Office does not have to consider the claim in the UK if they rule that another country – a “safe third country” – should in fact be responsible for your asylum claim.
Which EU point of entry country(ies) could be considered to not be a "safe third country"?
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
Gov just throwing dead cats all over the shop in the hope that Partygate and the fallout from Brexit hemorrhaging money out of the country will go away.
demographic wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:20 pm
Gov just throwing dead cats all over the shop in the hope that Partygate and the fallout from Brexit hemorrhaging money out of the country will go away.
demographic wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:20 pm
Gov just throwing dead cats all over the shop in the hope that Partygate and the fallout from Brexit hemorrhaging money out of the country will go away.
DefTrap wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:16 pm
Lolz that shit UK policy is all the EU's fault.
It never ends. We're out, get over it.
Please tell @demographicthat. Thanks.
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
demographic wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:20 pm
Gov just throwing dead cats all over the shop in the hope that Partygate and the fallout from Brexit hemorrhaging money out of the country will go away.
DefTrap wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:16 pm
Lolz that shit UK policy is all the EU's fault.
It never ends. We're out, get over it.
Please tell @demographic that. Thanks.
There are controls coming caused by Brexit that haven't even started yet, we're not even fully out yet and already it's a massive financial fuckup.
Name some wins?
demographic wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 9:20 pm
Gov just throwing dead cats all over the shop in the hope that Partygate and the fallout from Brexit hemorrhaging money out of the country will go away.
DefTrap wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:16 pm
Lolz that shit UK policy is all the EU's fault.
It never ends. We're out, get over it.
Please tell @demographic that. Thanks.
There are controls coming caused by Brexit that haven't even started yet, we're not even fully out yet and already it's a massive financial fuckup.
Name some wins?
Oh yeah... sovereignty...
Would you please compare in numerical terms the UK's current financial situation with what it would now have been had the UK remained in the EU.
Thanks.
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
The UK government has introduced new regulations under which they can rule that an asylum claim is inadmissible. This means the Home Office does not have to consider the claim in the UK if they rule that another country – a “safe third country” – should in fact be responsible for your asylum claim.
Which EU point of entry country(ies) could be considered to not be a "safe third country"?
You said the EU was not enforcing and EU law and to prove your point you make reference to a UK regulation ???
