You must log in or # to comment.
Says the totally trustworthy Government.
It's still a shit idea
One thing that really grinds my gears is when Starmer comes out and says he opposes the idea, not because it's horrific and makes the entire country look awful but because it's inefficient or ineffective.
Can't risk annoying the gammon contingent can we?
Eh, thing is, he doesn't need to persuade anyone who is against the mistreatment of others that the idea is horrific - they already know this without having to have anyone point it out, and are already firmly against proposals like this.
But he does need to persuade the chunk of the population that are indifferent to the plight of migrants, or who believe that cruelty is an effective tool, or who embrace cruelty for itself, to also reject this proposal. He won't want to draw their attention to the awfulness of the idea, as this group will be disinterested at best.
Without them on board, it will be considerably harder to force the Tories to back down, and though Labour will win the next election and can end any measure then, that still leaves time for tens of thousands of people to be forcibly removed to Rwanda.
What's his alternative, more efficient idea? Treat people like alpacas?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Opening their case, the lawyers said the Court of Appeal had been wrong to block the UK government's plan to remove some asylum seekers to Rwanda amid fears about its record.
Under the policy, anyone who comes to the UK without authorisation from a safe country and seeks asylum - in practice meaning people crossing the English Channel in small boats from France - can be blocked from making a claim for protection and sent to Rwanda instead.
In June 2022, the European Court of Human Rights blocked the departure of the first flight, saying that British judges needed time to fully consider whether the plan was legal.
The government's lawyers have said that in June the Court of Appeal was wrong to conclude that Rwanda's asylum system was so flawed it could send migrants back to their home countries, where they could be mistreated.
Sir James Eadie KC, for the home secretary, told the Supreme Court there was "every reason to conclude" that Rwanda would want the arrangements to work.
Sir James said that while critics of the Rwanda plan had warned about the country's human rights record, past incidents were not legally relevant.
The original article contains 596 words, the summary contains 195 words. Saved 67%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
