Braverman: Rise of the Fascists

[roubaixtuesday]

From the President of Rwanda: there are limits to how long this can drag on, and it's the UK's problem not Rwanda's.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ot-drag-on

This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Jonathan

And the utterly deranged behaviour of Tory MPs continues.

This one apparently thinks invading France should sort matters out, and would be welcomed by the French (OK, I exaggerate a little, but not much):

The Conservative MP Giles Watling has published a statement on his website suggesting he would like to see British troops deployed in northern France to stop the boats. He says:

The Home Office has demonstrated time and again that it is either unwilling or unable to grapple with the scale of the challenge facing it, and to that extent I believe it is time that it is relieved of the responsibility of policing our borders and instead the issue is handed to the Ministry of Defence. This is after all a defence of the realm matter and we need British boots on the ground.

Our borders must be stronger, and in order to achieve that we must explore negotiating with our continental neighbours, pointing out that they would regain control of their overrun towns from Dunkirk to Boulogne if they allow that, in addition to the people we already have in their command and control centres, we put British boots on the ground in northern France to assist their efforts.


From the Graun.

Why do these people always think that bringing in the army solves problems?

[Psamathe]

From the President of Rwanda: there are limits to how long this can drag on, and it's the UK's problem not Rwanda's.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ot-drag-on

This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Jonathan

If a country wanted to develop and/or maintain a positive international reputation it might look at risks to its name being dragged through the mud by a 3rd party country. So maybe Rwanda is now looking at the benefits it might get in comparison to reputational damage e.g. UK Courts have already declared verdicts about its "safety" and many publicly questioning its human rights record, dragging up maybe what Rwanda sees as historical issues it might rather forgotten.

At some point many the cash becomes less important and even less valuable than not being involved.

Ian

[Jdsk]

From the President of Rwanda: there are limits to how long this can drag on, and it's the UK's problem not Rwanda's.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ot-drag-on

This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Speaking of which:



Jonathan

[Jdsk]

Stopping the Boats has just disappeared from the Prime Minister's five pledges:
https://conservativehome.com/2023/11/21 ... -old-ones/

... and will anybody be surprised if we get another relaunch before tea-time today?

How many failed re-launches so far (after how many PMs ...)?

Completely unnecessary hole-digging by the Prime Minister on his"pledge" about the asylum legacy backlog:
https://fullfact.org/immigration/asylum ... g-cleared/
https://news.sky.com/story/asylum-backl ... p-13040984

and the UK Statistics Authority is now investigating.

And has reported:
https://uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk ... g-figures/

Confirmed combustion of nether garments. Again.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

Interesting development/information re: the Dorset Prison Barge - it's now more expensive per person that hotels!

Home Office has reduced the numbers it's going to put on the barge from 500 to 425 and ...

....
Nicola David from the NGO One Life to Live has carried out research into costings for the barge based on publicly available financial information. Based on the £8m a day figure for hotels and a maximum occupancy level of 425 for the barge, she has calculated that a hotel room per person per day costs an average of £157 while the figure for the barge works out at £172.45 – 10% more.

What surprised me is how a small reduction in numbers of refugees has swung from a financial "saving" to being more expensive - which I take to mean it was always a pretty marginal "cost saving" anyway (but at massive impact to those refugees).

"Home Office shelves plans to acquire more asylum accommodation barges":
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 80086.html

Seems sensible.

Jonathan

[reohn2]

Seems sensible.

Jonathan

That'll be a first

[reohn2]

The Tories want foriegners to come here and work for us but we don't twant their children:- https://youtube.com/shorts/g-91-53Q4iE? ... _Yjdpqi7Xv

[Jdsk]

Excellent pre-emptive action by the unelected House of Parliament:

Jonathan

[Cugel]

The Tories want foriegners to come here and work for us but we don't twant their children:- https://youtube.com/shorts/g-91-53Q4iE? ... _Yjdpqi7Xv

They needn't worry - Toryspiv will soon make it legal to employ children again. After all, it's a good Victorian tradition that helped build The Empire and, also, they're cheap - children - to employ as well as being well-able to squirm up chimneys and into the innards of machines to clean 'em.

By now, certain of the spivs will be representing the various slave-masters, indenturers and others with uses for children. It's better pay than that for an MP, although the spivs have arranged matters so they can still collect those official salaries as well as all the other bungs.

Just reputable capitalism, old bean. One must exploit all the resources.

[Psamathe]

Excellent pre-emptive action by the unelected House of Parliament:


Screenshot 2024-01-23 at 11.46.36.png


Jonathan

BBC R4 this morning referred to the vote as "advisory", which I assume means non-binding on the Government. Listening to the one report on the radio is my only source so I'm unsure about the status of the vote in practice. If "advisory" I can't see Sunak letting it get in his way, but it might help sway UK courts?

Ian

[Jdsk]

Excellent pre-emptive action by the unelected House of Parliament:

BBC R4 this morning referred to the vote as "advisory", which I assume means non-binding on the Government. Listening to the one report on the radio is my only source so I'm unsure about the status of the vote in practice. If "advisory" I can't see Sunak letting it get in his way, but it might help sway UK courts?

Yes, there's no direct consequence. It's a rehearsal of arguments and positions before the Government's Bill, which I think arrives on Wednesday.

Courts have looked at Parliamentary debates in order to determine what legislation means. But this debate would probably be too indirect for that, as it isn't wasn't the debate on the Bill.

Jonathan

[Psamathe]

Another example of the lies, spin and untruths to try and pursuade the UK public Rawanda is great for asylum seekers:

Exclusive: Rwandan homes praised by Braverman ‘won’t go to asylum seekers’
‘Beautiful’ flats that home secretary said would house deported asylum seekers have been sold, developers say

Homes that Suella Braverman claimed would house asylum seekers deported to Rwanda have already been sold, openDemocracy can reveal.

The then home secretary toured the Bwiza Riverside Estate in Rwanda’s capital, Kigali, last year during an official visit aimed at promoting the UK’s controversial asylum deal with the African country.

“The houses are for Rwandans and 50% is already sold. So if you say it’s for refugees, I don’t think so,” said the sales adviser at ADHI-Rwanda.

Two separate members of staff at Century Real Estate, which is selling properties in the Bwiza estate, also told openDemocracy’s reporter that the homes were not intended for refugees.

“They are selling them for people who want to own them. They are not fully furnished so I don’t know how they could be used for asylum seekers,” one real estate agent said.
...

Either Braverman lying to the UK or she's fallen "hook-line-and-sinker" to a scam.

Ian

[Psamathe]

Revealed: UK granted asylum to Rwandan refugees while arguing country was safe
Home Office said refugees’ fear of persecution was ‘well-founded’, undermining Rishi Sunak’s claims about East African country

Four Rwandans were granted refugee status in the UK over “well-founded” fears of persecution at the same time as the government was arguing in court and parliament that the east African country was a safe place to send asylum seekers.

An investigation by the Observer and the campaign group Led by Donkeys reveals for the first time details of Home Office decisions on Rwandans who have been given asylum in the past four months, claiming they were at risk from the regime.

The documents raise fresh questions over prime minister Rishi Sunak’s claim that Rwanda is “unequivocally” safe for asylum seekers.
...

Ian

[toontra]

Either Braverman lying to the UK or she's fallen "hook-line-and-sinker" to a scam.

They're not mutually exclusive!

[Jdsk]

And from the government: "Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill 2023: legal position ":
https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... accessible

And from Peretz: "Legislating lies and drafting dishonesty: the Safety of Rwanda Bill":
https://georgeperetzkc.substack.com/p/l ... dishonesty

And one that I wasn't expecting. From the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights:
https://committees.parliament.uk/public ... 6/default/
... the Bill is inconsistent with ECHR.

And Elliott in today's Times:

DAG: "How the government is seeking to change the law on Rwanda so as to disregard the facts":
https://emptycity.substack.com/p/how-th ... seeking-to
following the start of the debate in the unelected House of Parliament.

Jonathan