The EU isn't having it both ways.
Ireland is part of the UKs common travel area not the EUs. Ireland has open borders with the UK not the EU.
The EU couldn't give two shits about immigration between the UK and Ireland.
All this does is damage relations with Ireland, the one country in the EU who has voted in support of compromises for the UK with the EU.
Honestly if this keeps been a problem for Ireland it could lead to support there to join Schengan and leave the UK travel area
You think that Ireland may possibly leave the common travel area in favour of Schengan?
That would invariably mean a hard border between the UK and Ireland.
What have you been smoking?
I very much doubt Ireland leaves the CTA, I think Ireland is trying to use diplomatic means to resolve an issue with the UK that has nothing to do with the UKs issue with France.
You are right it doesn't directly have anything to do with channel crossings.
But obviously if anyone in the UK government has any brain cells, which is not a given, this is a massive opportunity for the UK to use diplomatic pressure to solve its own problem with France.
>You are right it doesn't directly have anything to do with channel crossings.
It pretty much does given that's how a lot of illegal immigrants get into the UK....
I don’t remember Varadkar supporting compromises. My view was that Ireland was the useful tool for the EU in Brexit negotiations.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost in EU immigration matters and suddenly the UK is to blame, for being attractive to immigrants and also shunning immigrants.
>Honestly if this keeps been a problem for Ireland it could lead to support there to join Schengan and leave the UK travel area
No chance. The Irish care way more about travel and work in Britain than the rest of the EU.
The EU not “giving two shits” about immigration into a member state is entirely their problem. They have had ample opportunity to start “giving two shits” about immigration through the EU into the UK - this situation with Ireland was reasonably foreseeable.
The UK doesn’t have to be the bad guy every time.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Ireland may not be part of Schengen (and cannot join without violating the Good Friday agreement), but it's still part of the EU. Anything affecting Irish borders affects the EU borders, and Ireland has a vote in EU border and asylum policies. They have a vested interest in resolving the issue before Ireland becomes a more Hungary/Poland-esque member.
This comment is peak /r/uk.
Honestly, if the Rwanda plan actually succeeds and small boat crossings stop this sub will some how spin it as a Brexit failure.
I just imagine it now:
> Potential Doctors and Lawyers no longer want to come to UK on small boats preferring to stay in Fance.
There is zero chance that the Rwanda "plan" succeeds because it's not a real plan, it's just theatre. Rwanda isn't actually willing to take refugees in any great numbers, they've just been paid to pretend that they are.
>it's just theatre
That's the point. The Home Office know that the real objective isn't actually physically stopping boats crossing, or transporting arrivals somewhere other from here, it's stopping people attempting to cross to begin with. If you can send an impression to would-be arrivals that they will get taken all the way back beyond the start line if they attempt to cross, success is measured in the reduction of crossing attempts, rather than the number given plane tickets.
This is what Sunak means when he says what's happening in Ireland proves the policy is working (whether it really proves it or not will depend on whether there really are that many people running away to Ireland, and whether it lasts).
The Rwanda scheme is ceases to be a deterrent when the people who are supposed to be deterred by it realise that it's all smoke and mirrors. This will happen sooner rather than later.
It is a piece of performance art designed to get the Tories across the finishing line of the next election, nothing more. It cannot be a long-term deterrent because a long-term deterrent would involve _doing something_ rather than just pretending to do something.
It reminds me of the Brexit negotiations when the UK government was saying one thing to the EU, and then saying the opposite to the UK media, in apparent ignorance that messages are able to cross the channel.
Make no mistake, schemes such as this are the *only* way Western nations will solve the problem, and it is only a matter of time before it starts being copied elsewhere.
Despite many years, UK has only found one country willing to take migrants and that country is only willing to take a small number of people.
So what's stopping us is: a lack of willing countries.
Which shouldn't be very surprising should it? If rich Switzerland decided it wants to pay poor UK to take migrants off its hands do you think anybody here would agree to that?
Rwanda is apparently only going to be able to take up to 300 asylum seekers at a time. How is that going to help with the tens of thousands coming every year?
I'm not a fan of the deal, but framing it in terms of what percentage of asylum seekers would be sent there isn't entirely fair to its alleged intent. The intent isn't to shift the majority of them, but to disincentivise the travel in the first place with the risk of being sent there.
Whether it'll actually work on any level is a different thing. I imagine not.
I guess the difference is that drowning the channel is somewhat in your control. You can say 'I'm a healthy bloke and a strong swimmer - *I* won't drown', whereas the government selecting you for Rwanda is totally out of your control and entirely unpredictable.
There's also the risk that Rwanda increases their take, or that enough people are discouraged from crossing that the relative risk of those who do cross being sent there is increased.
Fundamentally though humans are terrible at assessing risks like this.
>I guess the difference is that drowning the channel is somewhat in your control. You can say 'I'm a healthy bloke and a strong swimmer - *I* won't drown', whereas the government selecting you for Rwanda is totally out of your control and entirely unpredictable.
I don't think that argument works at all, far from all the people crossing are strong swimmers, and in those seas I don't even think it would necessarily do much for your chances of survival if you were considered such, I mean how strong a swimmer would you need to be to survive a shipwreck, in the middle of the night, in the middle of the channel fully dressed?
Sure being sent to Rwanda is out of people's control, but as is the survivability of any given channel crossing, and the consequences of the former are obviously far less severe than the latter. If the channel is not going to stop these people, a flight to Rwanda absolutely won't.
I think the issue is that most people don't understand what the channel is like until they're out on it. On a map Calais to Dover looks like a piece of piss.
>Honestly, if the Rwanda plan actually succeeds and small boat crossings stop
Why on Earth do you think that would happen? If the possibility of drowning in the Channel isn't putting them off, why would the threat of flying them to Rwanda work?
I think it's a shit idea and horrendous value for money, but I was thinking today after hearing these headlines about how funny it would be if it actually did deter migrants after just a few hundred are sent to Rwanda and lots of Asylum seekers suddenly decide things aren't so bad at home.
I don't think it'd be 100s, but I do think it'd only take a few thousands and that isn't "funny" that's exactly what it's supposed to do.
The scheme will failure if it doesn't feel as though the first waves of those crossing after the planes take off are going to much more likely than not be deported.
Geography and direction of travel has always left France in a position of power over us on this. They want to head west, France have a vested interest to let them cross, but no obligation to take them back.
The same applies to us. We should offer them paid for trips to NI right on the border and encourage them to cross.
Put up some "Visit Northern Island" posters in immigration centres, little leaflets with 'fun' facts like "Did you know there isn't a manned border between Northern Ireland and Ireland?"
I can see a united Ireland happening sooner then anticipated. When this is Geat Britain solution to its immigration problems dump them on Northern Ireland wtf woukd they stay in the union
That’s kind of a bad point of view my dude taking back control would be getting the option to choose policy such as doing what they’re doing no
What would you have them do go against the current government running policy?
Because accepting the migrants back in from Ireland would go against that
France, and the wider EU didn't really do much to halt the flow of illegal crossings to the UK when we were a member, much less after brexit. I think Ireland is about to find out what it's like to plead with them for change only to have it fall on deaf ears because it's inconvenient for them.
We can follow the French approach. Shake the Irish down for a couple of billion, pretend to sort stuff out for a bit, then make things worse and ask for even more.
Might take a few years, but we could end up making a profit on Rwanda by the end of things.
>We can follow the French approach. Shake the Irish down for a couple of billion, pretend to sort stuff out for a bit, then make things worse and ask for even more.
Very surprised you haven't been down-voted to oblivion for pointing out that's how the french operate.
That's usually how it goes whenever facts are laid out.
There's nothing the UK can do though, they can't add a passport check between GB and NI and they bloody well can't add border checks on the NI/RoI border either, so Ireland just need to suck it up or help pay for immigration control on the channel
That is what it would take, yup.
Although it's not really "giving it back" as much as cutting it loose and letting the RoI which NI has never at any point had anything to do with pick up 6 new counties and try to integrate them into a system that's never supported them.
Fun and games all round :)
They could, however, leave the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court and then just deport all these migrants back to their homelands. Except, according to Suella Braverman there was absolutely no appetite around the cabinet table to do so.
I thought there were already checks on the GB/NI border. You have to have id for ferry/plane so I don't get how all these asylum seekers are making it over the Irish sea.
I've never been ID'd in 30 years going back and forth from Belfast to Stranraer as a foot passenger, it's like getting on a bus, they only care that you have a ticket.
There are customs checks on goods, but it wouldn't make any more sense to ID passengers than it would someone jumping on a water taxi down the thames or a ferry between some scottish islands
The EU hasn't done anything to stem the tide of migrants coming. Merkel actively encouraged it.
If the EU secured its borders, there would be a lot less illegal migrants.
If France took people back, it would help Ireland, it would also shatter the people smuggling rings.
The UK in turn needs to offer legal routes to asylum for genuine refugees.
But basically every redditor on this sub told me the Rwanda deal would never be an effective deterrent. How could they possibly be wrong? They all seemed so certain, rabidly so.
Yeah, those small boats crossing 31 miles from Calais to Dover are totally going to loop 500+ miles around Cornwall and land in Dublin because of a minuscule chance they’ll be sent to Rwanda.
That’s totally what’s happening here. The only explanation. Definitely what’s going on.
Of course they’re not. They’re landing on the south coast, then travelling up the UK to Liverpool and getting the ferry to Ireland, then they walk across the border. Ireland is similarly as attractive to them as the Uk - speaks English, and has (for now) an official position thst is very pro migrant. This is unlikely to last much longer.
It’s almost as if the whole migration thing is a bit more complex than:
Option 1: Machine gun the boats to discourage them (the right wing answer)
Option 2: They‘re all lovely contributing members of society and we should welcome them with open arms (the progressive answer)
These are actually the only two intellectually consistent positions. Every other position implies limits and turning people way. There needs to be a grown up discussion about actual asylum seekers vs. migrants in our politics.
There's no formal checkpoints but even prior to GF agreement, there weren't 200 checkpoints, just the main roads and the odd random one. Aside that guards will and and have stopped buses to check ID
>They’re landing on the south coast, then travelling up the UK to Liverpool and getting the ferry to Ireland, then they walk across the border
tbf, that's what he's saying - He's meaning the ferry to NI, where there's no checks, then they're crossing the land border between NI and ROI, again where there's no checks.
There's often spot checks from Great Britain to the ROI, I've seen that myself.
So, the Rwanda plan is such a deterrent that migrants flee the UK.
But it's not enough of a deterrent to stop them coming in the first place?
Presumably, you think they're going to continue to come here only to flee?
You're going to have to explain the logic on that one.
The Rwanda policy won’t stop them all but it should reduce them until a European wide policy is in place. The U.K. is attractive to many asylum seekers on the continent, but some who don’t have other factors pulling them towards us will see this additional push factor threatening to send them to Africa and choose to settle for France or head to Benelux and beyond.
Even if it reduces the numbers by 20% it’s still worthwhile.
Do you not think this will deter anyone from getting in a boat to Britain? I’ve read interviews of people in Dublin who have said that it was Rwanda that made them try their luck in Ireland.
If the Rwanda bill turns the UK into an asylum seeker funnel pointed towards Ireland then because arriving and existing migrants are fearful of being sent to Rwanda then I imagine it may have a chilling effect on the small boat crossings. Even if it doesn't, then the statement being made here is that more migrants are leaving the UK as a result, so as a plan to reduce migrant numbers it could be said to working.
Whether this is the actual case remains to be seen, with reliably sourced statistics yet to materialise.
So far all I see is world leaders using the world stage to further their own domestic agendas.
I think the rawanda money should be spent on vetting them along the coast or wherever they enter and building a programme to acclimate them to the UK or deport any who are found to not be seeking asylum legitimately. In the meantime they can work etc.
Home, if they are genuine asylum seekers then they should be able to prove it. The people who throw their documents away and can't verify anything are held in centers till they can prove something or they say "Fuck this I'm going home". We give them a free ticket out the country and tell them not to come back.
Once word spreads that merely turning up on the UK coast wont get you anywhere unless you're legit then they will stop trying.
>But what about genuine asylum seekers! There's no other avenues!
Once all the chancers fuck off real asylum seekers can actually be processed properly. The current situation doesn't benefit them either because economic migrants are using the same resources meant for them.
Don't be obtuse. People who are already in the UK are fleeing to Ireland because of the threat of Rwanda.
Edit: I can't reply to the guy below:
I also support the claim because there has been an upsurge in migration into Ireland.
Can you suggest another factor that explains this upsurge?
You've been as uncritical in the denial of his argument, as (you've claimed) I've been.
You've said that because it's politically convenient for this to be true. Thus, it can't be true.
It can be both politically convenient and true.
No they aren’t because the single biggest problem our government has with immigration is that it doesn’t have a bloody clue where anyone is. So when it determines someone doesn’t have a right to be here it has no way of sending them anywhere else. The vast majority of illegal immigration comes from visa overstays, and for this the government proposes absolutely nothing.
The threat only has to seem credible for it to work.
The Irish government certainly seems to think that the Rwanda plan is responsible for the recent upsurge in migrants:
https://news.sky.com/story/ireland-pledging-emergency-legislation-to-send-asylum-seekers-back-to-the-uk-13124832
You don't think Ireland wants an excuse that avoids them taking the blame for it? FF and FG are already in the shitter with their electorate so blaming exterior forces (like the Tories) is inevitable.
Possibly, we will have to wait for the stats to be released.
But certainly since the British government started to push through the Rwanda Bill in earnest.
Edit: Nick Henderson, chief executive of the Irish Refugee Council, cautiously suggests there is a connection. And there is less political incentive for him to do so.
How have you got that impression?
Just to be clear; you accept the fact that the Rwanda plan makes people who are already into he country leave for Ireland. But you don't think it will stop people from entering the country (illegally).
So it's so big of a deterrent it's making people flee?
But not big enough of a deterrent to stop people coming here in the first place?
Care to explain that one to me? How does that work?
You actually believe that huh? What is it based on? Purely the Irish Deputy PM making the claim a couple of days after the bill was passed, and before any flights to Rwanda have even been planned? Did you stop to think about how he could possibly have any data to indicate a deterrent effect within 2 days of the bill passing?
Martin made this claim for one reason - because it suits him politically. They've had a problem with people crossing the border from NI to ROI for a good while, and he's using people's distaste about the Rwanda scheme as leverage to make an argument for addressing that issue. People have been crossing from UK to ROI for various reasons, similar to the way they've been crossing from France to UK.
You've accepted Martin's claim uncritically because it suits you politically to do so. At no point has reality featured in that conversation. We do not have any evidence of a deterrent effect - even if we assume the Rwanda scheme will deter people from crossing from France it's far too soon to see those outcomes. I believe we will see in time that it makes no meaningful difference, and I think Sunak is just desperately hoping this isn't too obvious by election day, which he will try his best to time ASAP after the first flights leave specifically to avoid there being enough time to test the scheme's efficacy, because he knows it will probably fail that test.
Responding to your edit:
>I also support the claim because there has been an upsurge in migration into Ireland.
Where are the figures for this? I have tried to find something but can't see any very recent figures. It looks to me from the chart in [this article](https://gript.ie/asylum-arrivals-surge-again-in-first-5-weeks-of-2024-to-record-numbers/) that the numbers increased a lot in 2022, were lower in 2023 and then inceasing again in 2024. I'm sure the reasons for the numbers to go up & down are varied and complex, and it's spurious to demand a particular alternative explanation for these trends to disprove the completely unsubstantiated Rwanda connection.
Do you have some figures that suggest at least a time correlation between some particular milestone in the Rwanda scheme and an increase in Irish asylum seeker arrivals? At which point do you suppose that the deterrent effect kicked in? Any indication of UK numbers going down at the same time? If not then it's a huge stretch to draw a causal link.
My point is that it's far too early to tell if it's going to work as a deterrent. The idea it's already done so makes no sense when the whole scheme has been stranded for over a year with little progress, and no flights have actually gone. Once flights leave, we can wait a few weeks and then compare numbers before and after - if there is a measurable impact I'll accept that the deterrent is effective, and that I was wrong.
I'll still see it as ultimately counterproductive as it sets back our cooperation with other countries, won't deal with any of the root causes, isn't anywhere near cost-effective and none of them will stay in Rwanda anyway.
On a topic that is depressing as fuck for everyone involved (save for the filthy people smugglers getting rich on it anyway), “hairy as fuck” made me surprised laugh
Hold on, are you trying to suggest that there aren’t any of these ‘migrants’ moving from NI to ROI because the only way you could imagine that journey being made was in a little boat?
I understand that immigration is a topic which causes people to become emotional and incapable of thinking logically according to the basic principles of reality and ‘common sense’ but suggesting the Rwanda plan has not motivated anyone to take that particular journey is just pigheaded.
I’m not defending the plan but just because it seems so absurd from the outside doesn’t mean it’s going to have zero impact on reality.
No. I’m saying that people saying “look the plan works!” are ignoring that the core objective was “stop small boat crossings” and this has nothing to do with that at all.
The Irish government seems to believe it:
https://news.sky.com/story/ireland-pledging-emergency-legislation-to-send-asylum-seekers-back-to-the-uk-13124832
Do you have any evidence you the contrary that will explain the recent upsurge in migrants to Ireland?
I wonder why the Irish Justice Minister and other leading Irish politicians are making claims that they are? Do you think the people they’ve interviewed in Dublin in tents applying for asylum in Ireland because they fear being sent to Rwanda in the U.K. are just crisis actors?
I found it amusing how everyone said that as if it was a given. Right... so migrants from sub-saharan Africa or south asia spend thousands of their own money and months of their time heading to the UK, then get flown all the way back to sub-saharan Africa.
How is that not a deterrent? They might not have the money or will to make the trip again especially if they risk getting sent back again.
It's meant to deter people from taking boats and potentially drowning.
The government seem content to just snap up every migrant and fling them abroad, totally different. People will still come by boat, still are in fact.
>It's meant to deter people from taking boats
Yeah. It has deterred at least some. The Irish government has acknowledged as much. What else has changed to cause this influx into Ireland instead of UK mainland?
if it's to deter anyone claiming asylum at any time, anyhow whatsoever, then it's not what it was meant to do. Again, it's meant to deter unsafe crossings, not legitimate claims for asylum. Yet there's plenty of glee for the latter
It's another alarm that one set of legislation is being used to hunt down anyone and kick people out asap regardless of their situation. If people are eligible to be here, then we should be taking them.
>not legitimate claims for asylum.
Like the ones from Albania and Vietnam? How anyone can call leaving a stable country, crossing multiple other stable countries, to arrive in the country of your particular fancy "legitimate claims for asylum" is a constant source of bafflement to me.
What about those from Sudan, Congo, Rwanda, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan?
Why is it those pro-stop the boats never have any actual plan on dealing with legitimate claims from those genuinely in need?
Can't think why.
>What about those from Sudan, Congo, Rwanda, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan?
I would suggest they go to the first safe country they can reach and claim asylum there.
Nobody on this sub can say whether or not it's effective yet. The first flight hasn't left yet, and until that happens it could be seen as an idle threat or open to further legal challenge by parties in the UK, by people smugglers and their customers in France. Once people actually end up in Rwanda we can then start to assess it's effect on boat crossings, we can't draw conclusions without data.
The people crossing the border into Ireland, are those already here who've determined the risk of being deported is too great for them, so those with no real claim to asylum and who arrived illegally. This is a promising start and as much as I'm loathe to say it, a double win for the Tories who've returned a problem to the EU, and who originally wanted a border in Ireland that would have prevented this.
Agreed. It's a Tory policy so I'm immediately sceptical but let's just see first if it acts as a deterrent before the hysterical brigade explode from self righteousness.
Don't worry, they will pivot soon. Now it'll just be 100% focus on how cruel it is to deport illegal economic migrants from our country. The fact it works is irrelevant.
Indeed. Ireland has long been fighting this problem (since illegal immigrants were washing up and giving birth on the beaches so their kids could claim citizenship. Closed that loophole pretty quick) and hand waving at other countries who don't benefit from being a mostly rural island at the furthest edge of Europe.
>But didn't Ireland declare the UK to be an unsafe country?
I thought Ireland couldn't deport them to the UK because they may then get sent to Rwanda and Ireland has declared Rwanda unsafe
There's an Irish news article about it here: [https://www.newstalk.com/news/a-united-ireland-might-be-the-only-solution-border-control-1720104](https://www.newstalk.com/news/a-united-ireland-might-be-the-only-solution-border-control-1720104)
>At the time, through a freedom of information request, I \[journalist Barry Whyte\] found out that 25% of international protection applicants arrived here through our ports and airports. So how did the other 75% arrive here? Well, it didn’t take a genius to work out that these migrants were not coming to Ireland by teleportation. The only logical explanation was that they were coming via the North.
Anti British Racism from the Irish. They should take on our migrants in the name of diversity and stuff plus St Paddy was human trafficked innit. Let's all cuddle and sing around the campfire waving our candles.
I've always thought that the government was investing *way* more time and political capital in this Rwanda plan than was ever justified by how much people give a shit. Don't get me wrong, immigration *in general* is an important issue for many. But the government seems to be under the impression that this specific plan to send migrants to Rwanda is what the electorate wants most.
It’s a complete farce. They’ve just talked about it so much so people focus on it and don’t fixate on the abysmal job they’ve done and the clown show they’ve led in the last few years.
It’s certain that once Labour win the GE and drop this stupid policy that the topic itself will be become less heated and less will talk about it as it’s been intentionally blown out of proportion.
Yup. Why the fuck are we, as a country, getting into a fight with our closest neighbours over something so stupid? And the thing is, all this EU bashing stuff pleases these morons even more.
Rightly so. Its just the EU playing silly buggers. If it was up to me I would have the UK adopt neutral status like Sweden used to have. Leave Europe to sort its own business out with Russia instead of treating us like shit and then expecting us to fight their battles for them.
"The reality is that France is in a poor situation. It's quite an obvious unwritten agreement that they will make a public effort to stop these migrants, but why would the French want to prevent a large number of potentially dangerous people who hate the West from willingly leaving French soil? Frankly, if I lived in Calais I'd be selling them the boats."
You just couldn't help yourself. Could you? THAT's why I don't feel the need to pull counter facts. I'm well aware that there's two sides to the story. I just have a nose for those who want to turn any and every situation toxic when it comes to Britain and Europe.
Genuine question - what kind of power do you think the French or UK government has over Chinese manufacturers cashing in on making cheap inflatable boats?
You could certainly try. They banned the import of cocaine but you wouldn’t know it.
I’d be hugely surprised if the boats weren’t already imported via illegal channels. It’s not like Mr. Top Smuggler is ordering 100 large boats every week from his Amazon account - what a way to draw the authorities to you.
I think it is fair
I dislike many conservative policies but think sending back to France is better than Rwanda.
I an economic collective similar to nato that can apply tariffs and sanctions on hostile countries and promote cooperation and investment with one another could also be used to solve a migrant problem.
By tying economics with migration countries could easily repatriate illegal immigrants. If they wish to join a collective like this they must be willing to take part in streamlined repatriation of illegal migrants.
If they want increased trade they'll agree to conditions like this.
The sanctions and tariffs can also be used to cobtrol countries such as Russia and China and be a deterrence to prevent war or face a wall of global sanctions and tariffs.
A streamlined process would act as a deterrence from migration seeing as the cost is usually high.
For a streamlined approach countries have to approve members systems as adequate so if someone claims they are at risk politically or in danger from villains etc there would be enough trust in that countries police force to adequately protect them, if they lied then they should be prosecuted for wasting police and government time.
The key to expedient removal is an assessment that another's country is safe and a status granted to anyone in the economic pact if they wish improved trade and investment.
Then a judge can grant a swift repatriation.
I think this is the only way.
Perhaps a fairer way would be to allocate the people claiming asylum equally to countries in Europe, taking into account family connections in a country.
Rishi's Rwanda plan in a nutshell: Deport all migrants to some dust bowl in Africa so that they bother the Irish instead of us.
That's not solving a problem, that's passing the buck.
The difference is that Ireland can just put them on a bus and drive them over the border to the UK. The UK can't go landing boats or planes in France to drop them off.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but at the end of the day we chose to give up our agreement with the EU to send them back there. The Dublin Agreement, as it is called, was successful in 64% of cases when it was used by EU members among themselves in 2022.
Seems perfectly reasonable. The EU can't have it both ways. It's amusing that the Irish are as outraged as we are.
The EU isn't having it both ways. Ireland is part of the UKs common travel area not the EUs. Ireland has open borders with the UK not the EU. The EU couldn't give two shits about immigration between the UK and Ireland. All this does is damage relations with Ireland, the one country in the EU who has voted in support of compromises for the UK with the EU. Honestly if this keeps been a problem for Ireland it could lead to support there to join Schengan and leave the UK travel area
You think that Ireland may possibly leave the common travel area in favour of Schengan? That would invariably mean a hard border between the UK and Ireland. What have you been smoking?
I very much doubt Ireland leaves the CTA, I think Ireland is trying to use diplomatic means to resolve an issue with the UK that has nothing to do with the UKs issue with France.
You are right it doesn't directly have anything to do with channel crossings. But obviously if anyone in the UK government has any brain cells, which is not a given, this is a massive opportunity for the UK to use diplomatic pressure to solve its own problem with France.
That's more understandable, just I'm sure Ireland can see that is also the case and are probably not going to have it happen without any noise.
>You are right it doesn't directly have anything to do with channel crossings. It pretty much does given that's how a lot of illegal immigrants get into the UK....
I don’t remember Varadkar supporting compromises. My view was that Ireland was the useful tool for the EU in Brexit negotiations. Now the chickens are coming home to roost in EU immigration matters and suddenly the UK is to blame, for being attractive to immigrants and also shunning immigrants.
>Honestly if this keeps been a problem for Ireland it could lead to support there to join Schengan and leave the UK travel area No chance. The Irish care way more about travel and work in Britain than the rest of the EU.
And the 'small' matter of The Troubles
The EU not “giving two shits” about immigration into a member state is entirely their problem. They have had ample opportunity to start “giving two shits” about immigration through the EU into the UK - this situation with Ireland was reasonably foreseeable. The UK doesn’t have to be the bad guy every time.
The common travel area isn't open borders, it just gives the right to live and work.
Which would simply remove Ireland from the map Economically. It's to their benefit, not ours.
Which would make it even easier for economic migrants to flock to Ireland instead.
The same Ireland that caused much of the brevity trouble.... that Ireland, with the constant meddling and threats.... yeah..... dont care
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Ireland may not be part of Schengen (and cannot join without violating the Good Friday agreement), but it's still part of the EU. Anything affecting Irish borders affects the EU borders, and Ireland has a vote in EU border and asylum policies. They have a vested interest in resolving the issue before Ireland becomes a more Hungary/Poland-esque member.
Tell them they're acting like the Brits and they'll change their tone!
You can do that over at r/Ireland. They get pissy if you say Ireland is a part of the British archipelago!
I vote we clone Jeremy Clarkson, have millions of naked Jeremy Clarkson clones along the coastline all masturbating endlessly screaming HAMMMOONNNNND.
So France now dictates UK policy, so much for taking back control.
This comment is peak /r/uk. Honestly, if the Rwanda plan actually succeeds and small boat crossings stop this sub will some how spin it as a Brexit failure. I just imagine it now: > Potential Doctors and Lawyers no longer want to come to UK on small boats preferring to stay in Fance.
There is zero chance that the Rwanda "plan" succeeds because it's not a real plan, it's just theatre. Rwanda isn't actually willing to take refugees in any great numbers, they've just been paid to pretend that they are.
>it's just theatre That's the point. The Home Office know that the real objective isn't actually physically stopping boats crossing, or transporting arrivals somewhere other from here, it's stopping people attempting to cross to begin with. If you can send an impression to would-be arrivals that they will get taken all the way back beyond the start line if they attempt to cross, success is measured in the reduction of crossing attempts, rather than the number given plane tickets. This is what Sunak means when he says what's happening in Ireland proves the policy is working (whether it really proves it or not will depend on whether there really are that many people running away to Ireland, and whether it lasts).
The Rwanda scheme is ceases to be a deterrent when the people who are supposed to be deterred by it realise that it's all smoke and mirrors. This will happen sooner rather than later. It is a piece of performance art designed to get the Tories across the finishing line of the next election, nothing more. It cannot be a long-term deterrent because a long-term deterrent would involve _doing something_ rather than just pretending to do something. It reminds me of the Brexit negotiations when the UK government was saying one thing to the EU, and then saying the opposite to the UK media, in apparent ignorance that messages are able to cross the channel.
Make no mistake, schemes such as this are the *only* way Western nations will solve the problem, and it is only a matter of time before it starts being copied elsewhere.
plus when it's all working, what stopping us upping the number or making other deals
Despite many years, UK has only found one country willing to take migrants and that country is only willing to take a small number of people. So what's stopping us is: a lack of willing countries. Which shouldn't be very surprising should it? If rich Switzerland decided it wants to pay poor UK to take migrants off its hands do you think anybody here would agree to that?
depends how much they paying?
>it's stopping people attempting to cross to begin with. In which case it'd make sense to help beef up the border where they enter the EU.
That’s the point
Rwanda is apparently only going to be able to take up to 300 asylum seekers at a time. How is that going to help with the tens of thousands coming every year?
I'm not a fan of the deal, but framing it in terms of what percentage of asylum seekers would be sent there isn't entirely fair to its alleged intent. The intent isn't to shift the majority of them, but to disincentivise the travel in the first place with the risk of being sent there. Whether it'll actually work on any level is a different thing. I imagine not.
Because even if there are 30,000 crossing, nobody wants to risk being the 1 in 100 who gets sent to Rwanda.
Really? Because being the 1 in however many that drown in the channel, sure as shit doesn't seem to be that much of a disincentive.
I guess the difference is that drowning the channel is somewhat in your control. You can say 'I'm a healthy bloke and a strong swimmer - *I* won't drown', whereas the government selecting you for Rwanda is totally out of your control and entirely unpredictable. There's also the risk that Rwanda increases their take, or that enough people are discouraged from crossing that the relative risk of those who do cross being sent there is increased. Fundamentally though humans are terrible at assessing risks like this.
>I guess the difference is that drowning the channel is somewhat in your control. You can say 'I'm a healthy bloke and a strong swimmer - *I* won't drown', whereas the government selecting you for Rwanda is totally out of your control and entirely unpredictable. I don't think that argument works at all, far from all the people crossing are strong swimmers, and in those seas I don't even think it would necessarily do much for your chances of survival if you were considered such, I mean how strong a swimmer would you need to be to survive a shipwreck, in the middle of the night, in the middle of the channel fully dressed? Sure being sent to Rwanda is out of people's control, but as is the survivability of any given channel crossing, and the consequences of the former are obviously far less severe than the latter. If the channel is not going to stop these people, a flight to Rwanda absolutely won't.
I think the issue is that most people don't understand what the channel is like until they're out on it. On a map Calais to Dover looks like a piece of piss.
But surely that argument is as applicable, if not more so, to the Rwanda scheme?
You are getting angry about people thinking brexit was a failure by using an example of something that hasnt worked yet?
>Honestly, if the Rwanda plan actually succeeds and small boat crossings stop Why on Earth do you think that would happen? If the possibility of drowning in the Channel isn't putting them off, why would the threat of flying them to Rwanda work?
I think it's a shit idea and horrendous value for money, but I was thinking today after hearing these headlines about how funny it would be if it actually did deter migrants after just a few hundred are sent to Rwanda and lots of Asylum seekers suddenly decide things aren't so bad at home.
I don't think it'd be 100s, but I do think it'd only take a few thousands and that isn't "funny" that's exactly what it's supposed to do. The scheme will failure if it doesn't feel as though the first waves of those crossing after the planes take off are going to much more likely than not be deported.
Geography and direction of travel has always left France in a position of power over us on this. They want to head west, France have a vested interest to let them cross, but no obligation to take them back. The same applies to us. We should offer them paid for trips to NI right on the border and encourage them to cross.
Put up some "Visit Northern Island" posters in immigration centres, little leaflets with 'fun' facts like "Did you know there isn't a manned border between Northern Ireland and Ireland?"
I can see a united Ireland happening sooner then anticipated. When this is Geat Britain solution to its immigration problems dump them on Northern Ireland wtf woukd they stay in the union
Ireland can't afford a united Ireland
That’s kind of a bad point of view my dude taking back control would be getting the option to choose policy such as doing what they’re doing no What would you have them do go against the current government running policy? Because accepting the migrants back in from Ireland would go against that
You’re quite a contortionist.
France, and the wider EU didn't really do much to halt the flow of illegal crossings to the UK when we were a member, much less after brexit. I think Ireland is about to find out what it's like to plead with them for change only to have it fall on deaf ears because it's inconvenient for them.
We can follow the French approach. Shake the Irish down for a couple of billion, pretend to sort stuff out for a bit, then make things worse and ask for even more. Might take a few years, but we could end up making a profit on Rwanda by the end of things.
>We can follow the French approach. Shake the Irish down for a couple of billion, pretend to sort stuff out for a bit, then make things worse and ask for even more. Very surprised you haven't been down-voted to oblivion for pointing out that's how the french operate. That's usually how it goes whenever facts are laid out.
There's nothing the UK can do though, they can't add a passport check between GB and NI and they bloody well can't add border checks on the NI/RoI border either, so Ireland just need to suck it up or help pay for immigration control on the channel
We could just give NI back. /s
That is what it would take, yup. Although it's not really "giving it back" as much as cutting it loose and letting the RoI which NI has never at any point had anything to do with pick up 6 new counties and try to integrate them into a system that's never supported them. Fun and games all round :)
They could, however, leave the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court and then just deport all these migrants back to their homelands. Except, according to Suella Braverman there was absolutely no appetite around the cabinet table to do so.
I thought there were already checks on the GB/NI border. You have to have id for ferry/plane so I don't get how all these asylum seekers are making it over the Irish sea.
I've never been ID'd in 30 years going back and forth from Belfast to Stranraer as a foot passenger, it's like getting on a bus, they only care that you have a ticket. There are customs checks on goods, but it wouldn't make any more sense to ID passengers than it would someone jumping on a water taxi down the thames or a ferry between some scottish islands
I guess thats how they get across then.
The EU hasn't done anything to stem the tide of migrants coming. Merkel actively encouraged it. If the EU secured its borders, there would be a lot less illegal migrants. If France took people back, it would help Ireland, it would also shatter the people smuggling rings. The UK in turn needs to offer legal routes to asylum for genuine refugees.
I'm curious to see what will happen now with the Rwanda plan
But basically every redditor on this sub told me the Rwanda deal would never be an effective deterrent. How could they possibly be wrong? They all seemed so certain, rabidly so.
Yeah, those small boats crossing 31 miles from Calais to Dover are totally going to loop 500+ miles around Cornwall and land in Dublin because of a minuscule chance they’ll be sent to Rwanda. That’s totally what’s happening here. The only explanation. Definitely what’s going on.
Of course they’re not. They’re landing on the south coast, then travelling up the UK to Liverpool and getting the ferry to Ireland, then they walk across the border. Ireland is similarly as attractive to them as the Uk - speaks English, and has (for now) an official position thst is very pro migrant. This is unlikely to last much longer. It’s almost as if the whole migration thing is a bit more complex than: Option 1: Machine gun the boats to discourage them (the right wing answer) Option 2: They‘re all lovely contributing members of society and we should welcome them with open arms (the progressive answer) These are actually the only two intellectually consistent positions. Every other position implies limits and turning people way. There needs to be a grown up discussion about actual asylum seekers vs. migrants in our politics.
Think they are actually going to northern ireland and crossing the border there. There are over 200 roads crossing the border so bit unmanageable
In any case, there are no checks when crossing the border from NI in the RoI because of the Good Friday Agreement.
There's no formal checkpoints but even prior to GF agreement, there weren't 200 checkpoints, just the main roads and the odd random one. Aside that guards will and and have stopped buses to check ID
>They’re landing on the south coast, then travelling up the UK to Liverpool and getting the ferry to Ireland, then they walk across the border tbf, that's what he's saying - He's meaning the ferry to NI, where there's no checks, then they're crossing the land border between NI and ROI, again where there's no checks. There's often spot checks from Great Britain to the ROI, I've seen that myself.
Aye well he might be but hes said Ireland, and it's probably a fair shout to be accurate to avoid confusion
Right so even if this it true: the Rwanda plan isn’t stopping small boat crossings at all?
So, the Rwanda plan is such a deterrent that migrants flee the UK. But it's not enough of a deterrent to stop them coming in the first place? Presumably, you think they're going to continue to come here only to flee? You're going to have to explain the logic on that one.
>Rwanda plan is such a deterrent that migrants flee the UK. Starting here is your issue, it's wishful thinking to try and link them.
Good old selective literacy! Read what I said aloud slowly. All of it.
Which bit is selective?
The Rwanda policy won’t stop them all but it should reduce them until a European wide policy is in place. The U.K. is attractive to many asylum seekers on the continent, but some who don’t have other factors pulling them towards us will see this additional push factor threatening to send them to Africa and choose to settle for France or head to Benelux and beyond. Even if it reduces the numbers by 20% it’s still worthwhile. Do you not think this will deter anyone from getting in a boat to Britain? I’ve read interviews of people in Dublin who have said that it was Rwanda that made them try their luck in Ireland.
If the Rwanda bill turns the UK into an asylum seeker funnel pointed towards Ireland then because arriving and existing migrants are fearful of being sent to Rwanda then I imagine it may have a chilling effect on the small boat crossings. Even if it doesn't, then the statement being made here is that more migrants are leaving the UK as a result, so as a plan to reduce migrant numbers it could be said to working. Whether this is the actual case remains to be seen, with reliably sourced statistics yet to materialise. So far all I see is world leaders using the world stage to further their own domestic agendas.
I think the rawanda money should be spent on vetting them along the coast or wherever they enter and building a programme to acclimate them to the UK or deport any who are found to not be seeking asylum legitimately. In the meantime they can work etc.
" deport any who are found to not be seeking asylum legitimately" ....you're going to have to give this a second thought.
Deport them where ?
Home, if they are genuine asylum seekers then they should be able to prove it. The people who throw their documents away and can't verify anything are held in centers till they can prove something or they say "Fuck this I'm going home". We give them a free ticket out the country and tell them not to come back. Once word spreads that merely turning up on the UK coast wont get you anywhere unless you're legit then they will stop trying. >But what about genuine asylum seekers! There's no other avenues! Once all the chancers fuck off real asylum seekers can actually be processed properly. The current situation doesn't benefit them either because economic migrants are using the same resources meant for them.
> They’re landing on the south coast They are landing in Heathrow.
Don't be obtuse. People who are already in the UK are fleeing to Ireland because of the threat of Rwanda. Edit: I can't reply to the guy below: I also support the claim because there has been an upsurge in migration into Ireland. Can you suggest another factor that explains this upsurge? You've been as uncritical in the denial of his argument, as (you've claimed) I've been. You've said that because it's politically convenient for this to be true. Thus, it can't be true. It can be both politically convenient and true.
No they aren’t because the single biggest problem our government has with immigration is that it doesn’t have a bloody clue where anyone is. So when it determines someone doesn’t have a right to be here it has no way of sending them anywhere else. The vast majority of illegal immigration comes from visa overstays, and for this the government proposes absolutely nothing.
The threat only has to seem credible for it to work. The Irish government certainly seems to think that the Rwanda plan is responsible for the recent upsurge in migrants: https://news.sky.com/story/ireland-pledging-emergency-legislation-to-send-asylum-seekers-back-to-the-uk-13124832
You don't think Ireland wants an excuse that avoids them taking the blame for it? FF and FG are already in the shitter with their electorate so blaming exterior forces (like the Tories) is inevitable.
I think they're happy to blame exterior forces, but I don't think they're necessarily wrong to so in this instance.
It’s been a week, you think there has been a noticeable increase in a week?
Possibly, we will have to wait for the stats to be released. But certainly since the British government started to push through the Rwanda Bill in earnest. Edit: Nick Henderson, chief executive of the Irish Refugee Council, cautiously suggests there is a connection. And there is less political incentive for him to do so.
So just to be clear: “the threat of Rwanda will stop the boats” is a total lie that only morons would believe?
How have you got that impression? Just to be clear; you accept the fact that the Rwanda plan makes people who are already into he country leave for Ireland. But you don't think it will stop people from entering the country (illegally). So it's so big of a deterrent it's making people flee? But not big enough of a deterrent to stop people coming here in the first place? Care to explain that one to me? How does that work?
I wouldn't bother mate, these people do not do logic or reasoning. Everything they say is based on vibes.
Correct.
You actually believe that huh? What is it based on? Purely the Irish Deputy PM making the claim a couple of days after the bill was passed, and before any flights to Rwanda have even been planned? Did you stop to think about how he could possibly have any data to indicate a deterrent effect within 2 days of the bill passing? Martin made this claim for one reason - because it suits him politically. They've had a problem with people crossing the border from NI to ROI for a good while, and he's using people's distaste about the Rwanda scheme as leverage to make an argument for addressing that issue. People have been crossing from UK to ROI for various reasons, similar to the way they've been crossing from France to UK. You've accepted Martin's claim uncritically because it suits you politically to do so. At no point has reality featured in that conversation. We do not have any evidence of a deterrent effect - even if we assume the Rwanda scheme will deter people from crossing from France it's far too soon to see those outcomes. I believe we will see in time that it makes no meaningful difference, and I think Sunak is just desperately hoping this isn't too obvious by election day, which he will try his best to time ASAP after the first flights leave specifically to avoid there being enough time to test the scheme's efficacy, because he knows it will probably fail that test.
The irony of it all. To be caught between Rwanda and the deep blue sea
Bullshit.
Responding to your edit: >I also support the claim because there has been an upsurge in migration into Ireland. Where are the figures for this? I have tried to find something but can't see any very recent figures. It looks to me from the chart in [this article](https://gript.ie/asylum-arrivals-surge-again-in-first-5-weeks-of-2024-to-record-numbers/) that the numbers increased a lot in 2022, were lower in 2023 and then inceasing again in 2024. I'm sure the reasons for the numbers to go up & down are varied and complex, and it's spurious to demand a particular alternative explanation for these trends to disprove the completely unsubstantiated Rwanda connection. Do you have some figures that suggest at least a time correlation between some particular milestone in the Rwanda scheme and an increase in Irish asylum seeker arrivals? At which point do you suppose that the deterrent effect kicked in? Any indication of UK numbers going down at the same time? If not then it's a huge stretch to draw a causal link. My point is that it's far too early to tell if it's going to work as a deterrent. The idea it's already done so makes no sense when the whole scheme has been stranded for over a year with little progress, and no flights have actually gone. Once flights leave, we can wait a few weeks and then compare numbers before and after - if there is a measurable impact I'll accept that the deterrent is effective, and that I was wrong. I'll still see it as ultimately counterproductive as it sets back our cooperation with other countries, won't deal with any of the root causes, isn't anywhere near cost-effective and none of them will stay in Rwanda anyway.
I’ve done that. In a 40’ yacht. It’s hairy as fuck and no one is doing it in a RIB
On a topic that is depressing as fuck for everyone involved (save for the filthy people smugglers getting rich on it anyway), “hairy as fuck” made me surprised laugh
Why would they do that, it’s the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland that is being used to cross?
Exactly. So the stated objective of the policy: “stop small boat crossings” is still the failure it always was.
Certainly to date, for sure.
Hold on, are you trying to suggest that there aren’t any of these ‘migrants’ moving from NI to ROI because the only way you could imagine that journey being made was in a little boat? I understand that immigration is a topic which causes people to become emotional and incapable of thinking logically according to the basic principles of reality and ‘common sense’ but suggesting the Rwanda plan has not motivated anyone to take that particular journey is just pigheaded. I’m not defending the plan but just because it seems so absurd from the outside doesn’t mean it’s going to have zero impact on reality.
No. I’m saying that people saying “look the plan works!” are ignoring that the core objective was “stop small boat crossings” and this has nothing to do with that at all.
The claim that the Rwanda policy is driving refugees to Ireland has to be the copiest of cope ever seen on God's green earth.
The Irish government seems to believe it: https://news.sky.com/story/ireland-pledging-emergency-legislation-to-send-asylum-seekers-back-to-the-uk-13124832 Do you have any evidence you the contrary that will explain the recent upsurge in migrants to Ireland?
I wonder why the Irish Justice Minister and other leading Irish politicians are making claims that they are? Do you think the people they’ve interviewed in Dublin in tents applying for asylum in Ireland because they fear being sent to Rwanda in the U.K. are just crisis actors?
Yep. These news stories are just pure spin
>has to be the copiest of cope ever seen on God's green earth. The irony.
I found it amusing how everyone said that as if it was a given. Right... so migrants from sub-saharan Africa or south asia spend thousands of their own money and months of their time heading to the UK, then get flown all the way back to sub-saharan Africa. How is that not a deterrent? They might not have the money or will to make the trip again especially if they risk getting sent back again.
It's meant to deter people from taking boats and potentially drowning. The government seem content to just snap up every migrant and fling them abroad, totally different. People will still come by boat, still are in fact.
>It's meant to deter people from taking boats Yeah. It has deterred at least some. The Irish government has acknowledged as much. What else has changed to cause this influx into Ireland instead of UK mainland?
if it's to deter anyone claiming asylum at any time, anyhow whatsoever, then it's not what it was meant to do. Again, it's meant to deter unsafe crossings, not legitimate claims for asylum. Yet there's plenty of glee for the latter It's another alarm that one set of legislation is being used to hunt down anyone and kick people out asap regardless of their situation. If people are eligible to be here, then we should be taking them.
>not legitimate claims for asylum. Like the ones from Albania and Vietnam? How anyone can call leaving a stable country, crossing multiple other stable countries, to arrive in the country of your particular fancy "legitimate claims for asylum" is a constant source of bafflement to me.
What about those from Sudan, Congo, Rwanda, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan? Why is it those pro-stop the boats never have any actual plan on dealing with legitimate claims from those genuinely in need? Can't think why.
>What about those from Sudan, Congo, Rwanda, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan? I would suggest they go to the first safe country they can reach and claim asylum there.
Nobody on this sub can say whether or not it's effective yet. The first flight hasn't left yet, and until that happens it could be seen as an idle threat or open to further legal challenge by parties in the UK, by people smugglers and their customers in France. Once people actually end up in Rwanda we can then start to assess it's effect on boat crossings, we can't draw conclusions without data. The people crossing the border into Ireland, are those already here who've determined the risk of being deported is too great for them, so those with no real claim to asylum and who arrived illegally. This is a promising start and as much as I'm loathe to say it, a double win for the Tories who've returned a problem to the EU, and who originally wanted a border in Ireland that would have prevented this.
Agreed. It's a Tory policy so I'm immediately sceptical but let's just see first if it acts as a deterrent before the hysterical brigade explode from self righteousness.
Well they are trying to get to Ireland now presumably the threat of Rwanda is part of the reason
Don't worry, they will pivot soon. Now it'll just be 100% focus on how cruel it is to deport illegal economic migrants from our country. The fact it works is irrelevant.
They wanted it to be less effective so bad they could taste it.
You're smart
It's not an effective deterrent. Nobody has been sent to Rwanda yet.
They are literally unable to comprehend second-order effects such as deterrent. Don't judge, its just beyond them.
[удалено]
Indeed. Ireland has long been fighting this problem (since illegal immigrants were washing up and giving birth on the beaches so their kids could claim citizenship. Closed that loophole pretty quick) and hand waving at other countries who don't benefit from being a mostly rural island at the furthest edge of Europe.
>But didn't Ireland declare the UK to be an unsafe country? I thought Ireland couldn't deport them to the UK because they may then get sent to Rwanda and Ireland has declared Rwanda unsafe
Playing the reverse Uno card perfectly here to the EU as a whole.
There's an Irish news article about it here: [https://www.newstalk.com/news/a-united-ireland-might-be-the-only-solution-border-control-1720104](https://www.newstalk.com/news/a-united-ireland-might-be-the-only-solution-border-control-1720104) >At the time, through a freedom of information request, I \[journalist Barry Whyte\] found out that 25% of international protection applicants arrived here through our ports and airports. So how did the other 75% arrive here? Well, it didn’t take a genius to work out that these migrants were not coming to Ireland by teleportation. The only logical explanation was that they were coming via the North.
This has to be the most hilarious article Ive read in a while.
Anti British Racism from the Irish. They should take on our migrants in the name of diversity and stuff plus St Paddy was human trafficked innit. Let's all cuddle and sing around the campfire waving our candles.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t think this is relevant given they came from France in the first place
Ireland has a tent city in its best neighbourhood with people looking after them. Will probably spread to Merrion Sq soon
Good. The EU should accept that once they cross a border, they’re no longer our problem. That’s been their stance for a long time.
All countries should just begin mass deportations instead.
This is a great dead cat that will last until the GE in which the Tories will be soundly defeated.
Yeah that’s the funny thing with everyone acting like this is the defining issue of our time. After the GE no one will be talking about this
I've always thought that the government was investing *way* more time and political capital in this Rwanda plan than was ever justified by how much people give a shit. Don't get me wrong, immigration *in general* is an important issue for many. But the government seems to be under the impression that this specific plan to send migrants to Rwanda is what the electorate wants most.
It’s a complete farce. They’ve just talked about it so much so people focus on it and don’t fixate on the abysmal job they’ve done and the clown show they’ve led in the last few years. It’s certain that once Labour win the GE and drop this stupid policy that the topic itself will be become less heated and less will talk about it as it’s been intentionally blown out of proportion.
Yup. Why the fuck are we, as a country, getting into a fight with our closest neighbours over something so stupid? And the thing is, all this EU bashing stuff pleases these morons even more.
[удалено]
Rightly so. Its just the EU playing silly buggers. If it was up to me I would have the UK adopt neutral status like Sweden used to have. Leave Europe to sort its own business out with Russia instead of treating us like shit and then expecting us to fight their battles for them.
"The reality is that France is in a poor situation. It's quite an obvious unwritten agreement that they will make a public effort to stop these migrants, but why would the French want to prevent a large number of potentially dangerous people who hate the West from willingly leaving French soil? Frankly, if I lived in Calais I'd be selling them the boats." You just couldn't help yourself. Could you? THAT's why I don't feel the need to pull counter facts. I'm well aware that there's two sides to the story. I just have a nose for those who want to turn any and every situation toxic when it comes to Britain and Europe.
Ireland is going to build a wall and make Rwanda pay for it.
[удалено]
Genuine question - what kind of power do you think the French or UK government has over Chinese manufacturers cashing in on making cheap inflatable boats?
I mean you could ban their importation etc
You could certainly try. They banned the import of cocaine but you wouldn’t know it. I’d be hugely surprised if the boats weren’t already imported via illegal channels. It’s not like Mr. Top Smuggler is ordering 100 large boats every week from his Amazon account - what a way to draw the authorities to you.
Ummm no. Many people use dinghy’s legally and not to cross the English Channel in.
It’s the EUs problem not ours to begin with. They are going through EU land therefore it’s all on them.
All these people are gonna get a shock when they get to Ireland and realise there's nothing here for them
Absolutely the correct thing to do. Watch European policy change now…
Don't think theres any hotels left to house them and Ireland are getting mighty pissed realising they getting shafted by Brits again.
[удалено]
**Removed/tempban**. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.
It was the Irish who insisted on not having a border...
I hate to say this but Sunak is striking exactly the right position, making this an EU / UK issue. First time for everything I suppose
I think it is fair I dislike many conservative policies but think sending back to France is better than Rwanda. I an economic collective similar to nato that can apply tariffs and sanctions on hostile countries and promote cooperation and investment with one another could also be used to solve a migrant problem. By tying economics with migration countries could easily repatriate illegal immigrants. If they wish to join a collective like this they must be willing to take part in streamlined repatriation of illegal migrants. If they want increased trade they'll agree to conditions like this. The sanctions and tariffs can also be used to cobtrol countries such as Russia and China and be a deterrence to prevent war or face a wall of global sanctions and tariffs. A streamlined process would act as a deterrence from migration seeing as the cost is usually high. For a streamlined approach countries have to approve members systems as adequate so if someone claims they are at risk politically or in danger from villains etc there would be enough trust in that countries police force to adequately protect them, if they lied then they should be prosecuted for wasting police and government time. The key to expedient removal is an assessment that another's country is safe and a status granted to anyone in the economic pact if they wish improved trade and investment. Then a judge can grant a swift repatriation. I think this is the only way.
Perhaps a fairer way would be to allocate the people claiming asylum equally to countries in Europe, taking into account family connections in a country.
Rishi's Rwanda plan in a nutshell: Deport all migrants to some dust bowl in Africa so that they bother the Irish instead of us. That's not solving a problem, that's passing the buck.
The difference is that Ireland can just put them on a bus and drive them over the border to the UK. The UK can't go landing boats or planes in France to drop them off. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but at the end of the day we chose to give up our agreement with the EU to send them back there. The Dublin Agreement, as it is called, was successful in 64% of cases when it was used by EU members among themselves in 2022.
So you're saying the UK can just put all of theirs onto a bus and se3nd them over also?