Forum Topic

Plan to stop the boats being held back

"Cruella accusses the West of "phoney humanitarianism" after judges rule Rwanda is not a safe third country".Words on the main news page of the BBC but quoted differently in the article.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66051292""Phoney humanitarianism" is holding back plans to tackle small boat crossings, the Home Secretary has said.Suella Braverman told MPs the abuse of the UK asylum system was "lining the pockets of people smugglers" and "turning our seas into graveyards".It follows a Court of Appeal decision which ruled government plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda were unlawful."I would dearly love to know why it is so difficult for governments to find people smugglers......

Ivonne Holliday ● 949d17 Comments

So I think was Rishi Sunak.  But that just gives them British Citizenship.  Boris Johnson wasn't and probably has a much more mixed heritage. Both Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg had American mothers.  In a time when so many move countries there will be many who have had to fight for it just because their father and their grandfather were both not actually born in the UK - just an accident of birth.However we've been in the city centre when there have been two women arguing because one of them was a later immigrant than the other!

Philippa Bond ● 946d

". But it's strange how some who have left want to pull up the ladder or will argue with others over why they are coming now"I'm not sure who you are referring to.Priti Patel and Suella Braverman were both born in the UK.

Ed Robinson ● 947d

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2020/01/historic-un-human-rights-case-opens-door-climate-change-asylum-claims?LangID=E&NewsID=25482There are lots of reasons for needing to migrate.  People have always migrated - countries change in size and shape due to wars but also due to the changes in the climate and to what and where and how we build changing the landscape.  Living on an island and knowing it no other way may make it more obvious but that doesn't mean that it always so insular - because it just wasn't!

Philippa Bond ● 947d

And standing back, staying out and not doing anything can cause just as many if not worse problems and distress. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't.  You will still find people leaving their countries.  Sometimes more people out than in.  People move countries for many different reasons and many yearn to go back when the situation changes.  Many will move on when ready. But it's strange how some who have left want to pull up the ladder or will argue with others over why they are coming now.  We give very little overseas aid nowadays.

Philippa Bond ● 948d

"Safe Routes"This is nonsense. There are millions of refugees mainly in neighbouring countries.Is safe routes going to solve that?Please be realistic.The Brexit/Safe Routes argument is a distraction from the main issues.Stop creating refugees! Stop destroying other countries for your economic/political benefit!

Ed Robinson ● 948d

What is happening:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwI6ANS6HAk

Philippa Bond ● 948d

Safe Routes and working with other countries in concentrating on stopping the people smugglers rather than on targeting the people desperate enough to take the small boats.https://www.politics.co.uk/parliament/yvette-cooper-garbage-small-boats-bill-impact-assessment-shows-suella-braverman-doesnt-have-a-clue/

Philippa Bond ● 948d

"So she was criticising Blair and Cameron then."Many in the current opposition voted for such action and votes against any inquiry.Perhaps it was a dig at them - who knows?Two wrongs do not make a right but discussing boats without foreign policy is "phoney humanitarianism" imo.The anti asylum seeker agenda started under new Labour and has continued since. Last time I heard, the opposition said they would not reverse any government legislation.

Ed Robinson ● 948d

"Of course we can just carry on and pretend that she is wrong and the West has an excellent humanitarian record!"So she was criticising Blair and Cameron then.

David Ainsworth ● 949d

Yes, Ed, a root cause analysis is needed. Yes, the West created many of the problems but coming up with meaningless phrases because the Appeal Court has rejected a plan that, apart from breaching international agreements the UK entered into freely having been instrumental in drafting them, is likely to be an expensive failure isn't going to solve the problem. Perhaps an efficient asylum application and processing system coupled with somehow rejoining the Dublin agreement might be a good start? And going after the real culprits; the people smugglers, not the victims?I seem to remember other vacuous phrases like "taking back control" - that one didn't help much, did it?

Michael Ixer ● 949d

The boat that sank last week killing god knows how many people set sail from Libya, a country the West destroyed. I do not recall such incidents when it had a functioning government. Many on board were from countries the West also destroyed.Of course we can just carry on and pretend that she is wrong and the West has an excellent humanitarian record!

Ed Robinson ● 949d

A meaningless phrase to appeal to brainless supporters?

Michael Ixer ● 949d

I'd like to know what she means by "phoney humanitarianism". Has anybody seen a fuller explanation?

David Ainsworth ● 949d

You could be correct, Ivonne. I haven't looked at the judgement in detail. I thought the news item I listened to referred to the ECHR, in practice I think it could contravene both the UNHCR and the ECHR!

Michael Ixer ● 949d

I agree with your last sentence!Also, I thought the ruling was based on UNHCR's findings more thanthe ECHR.  I am probably wrong, but her accussation of the West's "phoney humanitarianism" was, for all intents and purposes, conspiratory, false and ignorant?  The "West"???? She almost sounds like Putin!!

Ivonne Holliday ● 949d

This seems to be a technical ruling based on two (of the three) judges being unconvinced Rwandan guarantees that asylum seekers won't end up back in the country they're fleeing from can be met. I guess one would have to read the full judgement to find out why. It doesn't seem to say the policy as such is unlawful, just that it's unlawful because that weakness could breach their human rights under the ECHR.Braverman doesn't seem to have done her homework in looking at the detail which is obviously what the appeal court judges have delved into. Still her own Home Office doesn't seem convinced about the viability of the deal!Time she did a root cause analysis into the problem instead of trying to fix the symptoms?

Michael Ixer ● 949d

This seems to be a technical ruling based on two (of the three) judges being unconvinced Rwandan guarantees that asylum seekers won't end up back in the country they're fleeing from can be met. I guess one would have to read the full judgement to find out why. It doesn't seem to say the policy as such is unlawful, just that it's unlawful because that weakness could breach their human rights under the ECHR.Braverman doesn't seem to have done her homework in looking at the detail which is obviously what the appeal court judges have delved into. Still her own Home Office doesn't seem convinced about the viability of the deal!Time she did a root cause analysis into the problem instead of trying to fix the symptoms?

Michael Ixer ● 949d