What else should yet another £100million have been spent on?

[Chomper Higgot]

News that the UK Government, signed off by Braverman, has handed another £100,000,000 to Rwanda, for absolutely nothing in return begs a question.

 

Oh and the running total is now £190,000,000 with another £50,000,000 of UK tax payer money promised to Rwanda next year.

 

How else should this tax payers’s money have been spent?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/08/tories-rwanda-asylum-deal

 

 

[cleopatra2]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

News that the UK Government, signed off by Braverman, has handed another £100,000,000 to Rwanda, for absolutely nothing in return begs a question.

 

Oh and the running total is now £190,000,000 with another £50,000,000 of UK tax payer money promised to Rwanda next year.

 

How else should this tax payers’s money have been spent?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/08/tories-rwanda-asylum-deal

 

 

In addition for every migrant sent and accepted by Rwanda. The UK has to pay for the migrants upkeep and support for 5 years.

 

In effect the UK taxpayer is subsidizing the Rwanda government whilst having to accept any vulnerable Rwanda refugees in return.

 

It is also worth noting back in 2011 the Conservative party entered into a partnership with the Rwanda government.

[Chomper Higgot]

9 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

In addition for every migrant sent and accepted by Rwanda. The UK has to pay for the migrants upkeep and support for 5 years.

 

In effect the UK taxpayer is subsidizing the Rwanda government whilst having to accept any vulnerable Rwanda refugees in return.

 

It is also worth noting back in 2011 the Conservative party entered into a partnership with the Rwanda government.

And….

 

Rwanda have stated they can only take 100 asylum seekers from the UK, which is half the immense number of 200 they initially agreed to.

 

So £240,000,000 handed over in the hope of being able to deport 100 asylum seekers.

 

Plus a a five year commitment to their on going keep.

And…..

 

Rwanda get to send up to 200 of their immigrants to the UK.

 

I wonder if any idiot in UK Gov has considered which particular immigrants Rwanda might choose to send?

[impulse]

On 12/9/2023 at 8:37 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

And….

 

Rwanda have stated they can only take 100 asylum seekers from the UK, which is half the immense number of 200 they initially agreed to.

 

So £240,000,000 handed over in the hope of being able to deport 100 asylum seekers.

Is it really that stupid?

 

If so, on the face of it, I can't help but wonder if there's a component of "white man's guilt" in those numbers.

[Foxx]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

I can't help but wonder if there's a component of "white man's guilt" in those numbers.

 

I didn't think the current bunch of Tories were capable of guilt, or indeed of any sort of compassionate emotion.

[Denim]

The need to be seen as ' doing something ' about immigration has not only made this government a laughing stock but has pi**ed a fortune in tax payers money up the wall on a scheme that was obviously riduculous and unworkable from the get go.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Is it really that stupid?

 

If so, on the face of it, I can't help but wonder if there's a component of "white man's guilt" in those numbers.

Nothing to do with this fictitious ‘white  man’s guilt’, and yes it really is that stupid.

 

More so.

 

The deal is an agreement to exchange asylum seekers, fire every asylum seeker sent to Rwanda by the UK, Rwanda gets to send one of their own asylum seekers to the UK.

 

And the really dumb bit, the UK agreed to pay the costs of any asylum seeker send to Rwanda by the UK for five full years.

 

It’s idiocy beyond fathoming.

 

 

[impulse]

10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Nothing to do with this fictitious ‘white  man’s guilt’, and yes it really is that stupid.

Being an American, I refer to "white man's guilt" when I see how many US criminals are released as some kind of atonement for perceived past injustice. 

 

That in spite of FBI statistics that clearly show some demographics need to be incarcerated at higher rates simply because they commit more crime per Capita.

 

I assume the Brits have a similar collective feeling of guilt.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

Being an American, I refer to "white man's guilt" when I see how many US criminals are released as some kind of atonement for perceived past injustice. 

 

That in spite of FBI statistics that clearly show some demographics need to be incarcerated at higher rates simply because they commit more crime per Capita.

 

I assume the Brits have a similar collective feeling of guilt.

We should have a thread on crime, its root causes, who commits what crimes, who gets sent to prison and who doesn’t.

 

Unfortunately this isn’t it.

[impulse]

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

We should have a thread on crime, its root causes, who commits what crimes, who gets sent to prison and who doesn’t.

 

Unfortunately this isn’t it.

True. My guess is that the ridiculous seeming terms is some kind of atonement on the part of the Brits for perceived past injustices.

 

But I put that forward not because I know, but because I'd be interested in learning more from any Brits that want to set my thinking straight.

[Chomper Higgot]

58 minutes ago, impulse said:

True. My guess is that the ridiculous seeming terms is some kind of atonement on the part of the Brits for perceived past injustices.

 

But I put that forward not because I know, but because I'd be interested in learning more from any Brits that want to set my thinking straight.

The explanation is political desperation.

 

The Government and the PM in particular have married themselves to an immigration policy that is doomed to fail and that splits the governing party.

 

The only way to get Rwanda to agree to this farce is to throw money at Rwanda.

 

The UK has nothing else to bargain with. 
 

But here’s an observation on the ‘white man’s guilt’ thing; far from being guilt of any kind, this farce is a clear example of neo-colonialism, dumping the UK’s problems on an African nation.

 

The rightwing idiots who back this nonsense fail to consider a very simple question: If immigration is problem in the UK, how long before Rwandans object to the UK dumping its immigrants on them?

 

There is another argument: that the policy is meant to fail and is in fact a Trojan Horse designed to create at conflict with and argument against Hunan Rights Laws and the UK’s membership of the ECHR.

 

This is precisely what is playing out in Parliament right now, with a vote to be called today.

 

The center right of the Parliamentary  Conservative Party are arguing the Government must act within Human Rights Laws and International Laws (as directed by the Supreme Court), the extreme right wing are arguing for circumventing Hunan Rights Laws and International Laws/Treaties and circumventing judicial oversight. 

 

The only logical conclusion is that this is precisely the situation the policy is meant to give rise to. Ending Human Rights Laws and membership of the ECHR has been a decades long target of the extreme rightwing in the UK.

 

Rwanda in the meantime has stated that if the UK breach international law and treaties then the deal is off.  
 

The vote today is worth watching, if Sunak fails to pass the bill he will have delivered a Government in stalemate.

 

If the bill passes it will get pulled up in the House of Lords and the courts have yet to have their say.

 

A right Tory mess of their own making.