What is this policy seen as from the Rwandan perspective? Like they don't care about the UK border crossings, so do they have some incentive like "diversifying the population" or encouraging tourism or what?
@@aceman0000099 I don't know what it is for the average citizen (they might not even care tbh), but for the government it's a great day. They've been paid almost a quarter billion by the UK and haven't had to do much of anything. And I'm sure even they're aware of how much a waste of money pursuing a policy like this is, as opposed to just bolstering your own immigration infrastructure and clearing the back log. It's not like all those asylum applications are even going to be granted anyway, and this is before you realise these "small boats", and "out of control illegal immigration" accounts for less than 2% of total immigration to the UK, they probably think those British politicians are stupid lol.
The Conservatives entire strategy at this point is hope that Starmer and Labour screw up in some form that causes a shift in the opinion. The problem is even on the occasions Starmer and Labour do screw up (e.g. Gaza, Rachel Reeves Plagiarism row, ect.) its often completely overshadowed but some new (or renewed) scandal in the Conservatives. The fact is people are already fed up and just want the General Election to happen already so we can all move on.
And that general election will just see that the show continues. Vote and you simply consent establishment to continue destroying our liberties and dignity - regardless of who you're voting.
@The_Phoenix_Saga yes but not voting is enabling a broken government to continue to barely function for at least another 4 years. You're saying this as if not voting will be some sort of "gotcha" for the people in power, when all it will do is cause mass complacency, which is the complete opposite of what anybody wants, including you I'm assuming.
@@bluegoose7832 On the contrary, without the vote, there is no legal basis. The vote is the signing of a contract that expires upon the next vote and so on and without that, establishment cannot justify itself. Your argument is the red herring that the establishment depends on people falling for. A lack of order, but who's I wonder is at stake. A little fear is all it takes to control the masses and the illusion of choice within the system is the perfect remedy to placate them. The only mass complacency has come about as of those becoming too dependant on the state to support them. That in itself is by design- the people are too timid, too limited and too weak to do by themselves and for that among other reasons is why I can say confidently that we as a people like so many other places are doomed to fail and revert right back to submissive obedience like establishment is hoping for. They don't want people to think for themselves, they want people to be obedient by choice: smart enough to run the machines but just stupid enough to not ask questions. As George Carlin put "It's a club and you're not in it. It's why they call it 'The American Dream' because you need to be asleep to believe it." And the same there is the same here. The greatest trick a dictator plays is coaxing the people that they made the choice to put them there. And ironically they always do because of two simple words "Its easier" easier to live in the illusion of freedom then to actually be free, because people balk at the idea of personal responsibility and accountability. Why do you think people began voting in these lunatics in the first place??
The reason I struggle with policies like the Rwanda saga is because even if you removed your personal political beliefs, its just a terrible plan that costs too much and wont actually change the 'problem'. If migration is a genuine concern to conservatives, then tackling actual migration and not getting headlines is just a far better investment of time and money. This policy is the 'juice cleanse ' of the politics world 😂
Yeah, ultimately asylum seekers are a small part of any issues arising from immigration. Making overseas countries better would reduce asylum seekers. Building more houses would reduce the pressure in the UK etc.
@@lonyo5377let's not forget that the UK is responsible for a lot of those refugees and immigrants. It's our foreign policy that has and keeps on destroying other countries. It's only normal that then people will flow to safer, stabler countries where they can live and prosper.
@@lonyo5377the problem with trying to make other countries better is most of the time all of the aid and money they’ve had never gets to the people who need it.
@@kobalos73they don’t prosper though. How many of these boat people end up with high paying jobs and great careers. None. Most of them end up working in old petrol stations cleaning cars or as delivery drivers.
@@adv8nturenick yes my privileged friend. That's prosperity when you compare it with a war zone and refugee camps in the desert. At least this way they can work hard and dream of a better future for their children. They will be able to send them to schools, educate them, maybe even uni.
This is just insane. So the Supreme Court lists 5 very basic reasons why Rwanda is not safe. Sunaks response to this is to pass legislation that says it is safe? WTF!?
Pretty soon the Tories will pass a law saying housing prices are fine and no one is allowed to say differently. And a law saying the all Tories are smart handsome guys.
The Supreme court knows so much more than what British govt likes to admit. The supreme court knows Rwanda is a War mongering country that is responsible for worst War ever in Africa,meaning the 2nd Congo War. They also know that Rwanda is also responsible for displacing hundreds of thousands of people in Great Lakes region as they support M23 rebels. Last but not least,the Court knows that Rwanda is heading towards another War with Congo,this time it could be inside Rwanda’s doorstep,so it’s not safe place to send refugees.
Giving away hundreds of thousands of £s whilst our nation is suffering the biggest drop in living conditions for a scheme that has more holes than Swiss cheese with its clauses and and no chance of happening but is still costing us millions more is insane. Its absolutely insane.
Much more like ££££'s millions. It's a complete and utter batsht crazy plan that hasn't got a hope of working. . . but let's splash £290 million (and counting) on it.
@@Besthinktwice No it isn't. Why don't you actually research what conditions are like in Rwanda these days? Hmm, quite racist for you to assume all African nations are poor places to live... /s
@@MegaShrooomWhy don't you volunteer to emigrate there yourself then? £450m to send 200 asylum seekers to sub-Saharan Africa. A unit cost of £2.5 million per deportee. Repugnant and utterly stupid.
Imagine being so horrific that the Rwandan government thinks you are too inhumane. Makes one think about all the choices that delivered us to this point in history.
I partially agree, but don’t pretend that Rwanda is your average African country. They’re one of the safest and cleanest countries on the continent, at least if you ignore what’s going on just across the border in DRC. But that conflict hasn’t reached Rwandas borders anyway. Rwanda really isn’t that bad, but I still think this is a dumb plan
@@bababababababa6124 It is technically one of the safest and least corrupt countries in Africa. People here tend to get hyperbolic when they talk about the place. But you're incorrect about the conflict, it has reached their north western border, it's the one place in the country that isn't safe to go too because it's quite literally happening there. And the way it's looking right now it could progress into a war. Can't send refugees to a *potential* warring nation. Especially when the safety you sold the plan on may have been compromised by the host country. (That's before the obvious human rights violations you'd have to step over to even suggest such an idea).
@@bababababababa6124there are 208,000 rwandan refugees still in the DRC and other African countries. Why doesn't rwanda start with taking their country women and men back home.
Except that the eu now will also send immigrants to rwanda, will you be a person of integrity and call them insane too? Dont feel pressured I have 0 expectations of you
@@wich1 just give the bbc a couple weeks to turn the topic around, and repeat their message enough so even you will support sending immigrants to rwanda, or are you a eurosceptic perhaps????
How can any thinking person have come up with it and how can any thinking person think it might somehow work and achieve anything apart from filling the coffers of the Rwandan government and plenty of lawyers?
@@PEdulis The reason they're pushing it is because it's a way to seem Tough On Immigration, to appease the "I'm not racist but" cadre of Little Englanders.
I personally think it is hilarious that the Tories have responded to the statement that Rwanda isn't safe with legislation that officially states "nuh uh".
On first glance it's hilarious, on second glance it's horrifying because it indicates a fundamental flaw in the established separation of powers, if the legislative can just pass laws to specifically invert the judicative's rulings.
It's a lot of effort for a (judicially ruled illegal) policy that will ultimately not deter migrants because y'know, people will always keep trying to get into the UK.
If boats will become too hard, they'll get on trucks. If trucks become too hard, they'll find another way. Its best we find a better way to regulate them coming in, rather than try to stop them from coming altogether (which would be impossible).
@@breakdown3317 We just need more people to process who comes. The reason for the backlog is because we have no one processing them, and the focus is stopping anyone in the first place. Once you process them then you can rightfully decide if they can be here or not.
@@Besthinktwicethis makes me think about the aging crisis many first world countries are facing. Their economies could shrink and crash if they age out too far and don’t replace their population, but they still won’t let immigrants in. Makes you think if this is God trying to send a message
Labour have got a much cheaper alternative. They will send all the people who cross back to France. Once it becomes widely known that the return journey is automatic far fewer people will risk the crossing.
Sunak just found cheat codes for reality. Just pass a law saying what ever you want to be true is true. Tories could solve the climate crisis today by just passing a law saying it is fine.
If I grew up in a one nation Tory house, was middle class and believed that a combination of Iraq and a ketchup sandwich had sealed the fate of the Labour Party forever…. I’d be panicking right now.
You have not commented on the fact that the treaty states that we will take refugees from Rwanda if their application for refugee status in Rwanda fails; hence Chris Heaton-Harris was asked a pretty simple question related to Rwanda. Is it possible that some people will come from the African country before asylum seekers are sent from the UK to Rwanda? He could not answer, or didn't want to answer. BBC Breakfast 07:40 09/12/2023
If only the Tories would devote as much time and effort into dealing with issues that the British people are actually concerned with, such as cost of living crisis and crumbling public services.
Senior politicians of the country and political party that primarily created the European Convention of Human Rights want to withdraw from it. The convention created in the WWII aftermath to bury fascism for good.
You know what's even more funny. Geopolitics might well end up kerploding the bill even further because, as a pervious TLDR global video pointed out, there's a serious risk that Rwanda becomes an active war zone in the near future which would absolutely give cause for the Supreme Court to overule the bill
Tories will just pass a law declaring that there is no war. Tories have started taking policy direction from children's shows. There is no war in Ba Sing Se.
I finally understand it. It isn’t anything to do with safety, policies, politics, or agendas. It all boils down to the astronomical costs of lawyer fees in the UK & Rwanda
The issue of if Rwanda is a safe country is pretty simple. The Tories are trying to use the threat of being sent there as a deterrent to stop refugees. If Rwanda was a safe country it would not be much of a deterrent would it.
What a first world citizen take. If Rwanda is safe, it won't stop the persecuted ones but it surely will stop those who want to migrate due to the economic reasons
@@dmytronazaryk681 Those who try to claim refugee status for economic reasons are already deported, it is already not a valid reason for refugee status. None of them will get in if the government simply processes the claims according to the existing laws. It is kind of sad that you do not know that.
Let's decree Rwanda safe. And while we're at it - let's decree there are no homeless people in UK. And presto - homelessness solved! But why stop there?! There are more decrees Tories can vote in: crime, inflation; and after all - who said PI has to be 3.14?
Rwanda gets to send migrants who commit crimes to Britain as well as send any asylum seekers to Britain in exchange for the asylum seekers coming to Britain
Money, political clout, migrant labour. Rwanda is a pretty rapidly growing economy and one of the most stable in Africa right now. That's not to excuse that they do have problems but they are clearly seeking more global recognition and respect, not just within it's immediate sphere of influence.
Feedback: 1) you start by wanting to discuss the plan, but don’t make a single reference to the UK having to take an unspecified quantity of asylum seekers whose claims are being processed in Rwanda; 2) you’ve not mentioned that the UK can only see 100 asylum seekers to Rwanda (according to UK Supreme Court papers); 3) no mention on how much has already been paid to Rwanda, nor how much would be given to Rwanda, per asylum seeker per year; 4) time index 4:36 attributes the quote to the Supreme Court instead of Jenrick Thanks for taking the time to create this video, and for listening to my comments.
@@eddiecalderone LIKE the European court. Not THE European court. We don’t have a good track record of listening to our own citizens, and listening to someone in another country, well….them’s fightin’ words 😉
You're as guilty as the BBC and the Tory Press for not giving all the details. Its not just sending refugees to Rwanda to be assessed; it's sending a maximum of 200 refugees a year for 5 years, in exchange for an unspecified number of refugees from Rwanda being sent to the UK that could easily be more than 200 per year and be sent at any time. Plus the UK has to pay for the upkeep of the refugees in Rwanda in addition to the tens of millions spent bribing the Rwandan government.
Also any refugees that commit any crime at all will be sent back to the UK, so we can only send the ones who will behave themselves. This isn't a deterrent at all.
So given the Rwanda fiasco was supposed to *lower* immigration, why did the UK accept a deal limiting how many refugees they could deport to a country which can send an unlimited amount of refugees to the UK?
You're completely wrong. Rewanda said back in July they, could not accommodate, as in put in accommodation currently any more than 200 refuges. To which the Tory government said they will pay for many more and upscale accommodation very quickly. So it's not sending a maximum of 200 a year for 5 years. That is not part of the policy and is actually even more stupid than the actual plan.
@@rynabuns It isn't a policy designed to help the situation. It was just intended as political grandstanding to try and appear as though they were doing something.
And on top of that. There are 208,000 rwandan refugees in congo. Who haven't gone back to their home country. Yet rwanda is busy taking in other people instead of their country men and women in refuge camps in other African countries.
450 million to Rwanda for a deal that would see no more than 200 asylum seekers deported. In exchange for a reciprocal deal to send Rwandan asylum seekers to Britain. In addition, any deportees who commit a crime in Rwanda, can be returned to Britain. The worst deal negotiated in history. Apart from being morally repugnant, it's just an absolutely crap deal.
i know it scares me, only 800,000 this year were let in we are now practically a fascist state under the tories. i worry we will never make the uk's native population the hated minatory we wish they were.
Have you counted how many children have been stabbed in the UK this year. Rwanda is one of the worlds safest countries in 2023. We have to be fair in judgement
@@tremarley9648 yes.... Let's do a comparison. So 900,000 killed in 8 months is Rwanda. All murders per year in the UK. 500. Percentage of murders that are children. 30. Let's see, 900,000/30 Is 30,000. As percentage 3,000,000% So Rwanda had 3 million percentage more murders through one 8 month period than a year in general of child murders Let's go all murders since 1993, when they had the genocide. Average of 500 a year for 30 years is 15000, So 15,000 / 900,000 15/900 5/300 Less than 2% of that died in the genocide. I seriously think you are either deluded or might have been hit in the head with a spade as a kid.
Even the country which has been described as unsafe, don't want to go as far as the Tories and contravene international law! They really are extremely far right and we should all be worried they want to take away our human rights. Because don't forget, if you exit the convention on human rights, that takes those rights from EVERYONE, not just immigrants! Ask yourself what a rich business owners / Tory donors get out of this and you start to understand why they're pushing so hard for it. Scary stuff!
Im bot brittish so I cant say i know everything but do u honestly belive they want that, dont u think it would be a new law implemented without some of the issues they have with the current law?
@@nenasiek Absolutely. It's not difficult to see rich and powerful people doing what they can to hold on to power. They don't care about the country, only enriching themselves. And if you take away people's rights, you take away their power and they become much easier to control, manipulate and outright profit from. They recently changed the law to make protesting much more difficult, and were then granted billions of pounds worth of new oil deals. They used to do this stuff behind closed doors, but now it's out in the open.
The scheme costs us £240million, for maybe 1,000 refugees (so £240,000 per refugee). Also the UK takes an equivalent number of Rwandan refugees back to the UK.
It's worse than that but the reason the right wing of the party want this particularly the EDF and Nat cons is to remove our human rights by leaving the echr. They've already removed some protest and workers rights and this was one of the reasons for brexit. Deregulate the uk and remove all our rights. That's why they're pushing rwanda and bang on about the echr
Why are the conservatives so fixated on this Rwanda plan. Israel tried it and the migrants just tried again and went to the Netherlands because the israeli government gave each migrant 3500usd.
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 they went to Israel cause they couldn't afford the EU. The UK is just about the hardest EU country to get into other than maybe Finland and Norway. Anyone trying for the UK probably has a reason to do so and will try again
If the ECHR said the policy violates the European Convention of Human rights, and its decision is supposed to be binding, why wasn't that the end of this policy?
I think that if Labour, when they get in the government next year, passes voting reform to get rid of first past the post system, that might actually mean the end of Conservative party and likely left wing electoral dominance for quite a long while. Because right now it seems like the Conservative party is actually three or four different parties held together only by their mutual dislike of Labour. If people could vote for who they wanted instead of who they feared a likely outcome would be a de facto split of the Conservative party and a birth of several new right wing parties which would then struggle to compete with the single Labour party.
I only want to know one thing: will we have another pm before the next general election? No. 10 suddenly looks like one of those American motels in LA.
They can't afford to, next general election is less than a year away and a big reason as to why the Tories are polling so badly is the ministerial musical chairs that's been happening for the last 8 years
Unfortunately, looking at front pages of Express, Mail, Spectator, Telegraph and one minute of GB News will tell you that A LOT of people where you live think Rwanda is essential, fair and urgent.
Bringing in refugees and migrants has only ever had a POSITIVE effect on the local economy. The VAST VAST majority of studies into the economic effects of immigration have concluded that the long term effects of having a large population of able bodied people enter the country and workforce has lead to growth in the economy. Britain has had growth issues the past 15 years, but no one mentions that the UK enjoyed a period of increased growth throughout the 90's partly caused by an influx of Eastern European refugees...
I am sure that makes the teenage victims of Muslim grooming gangs feel so much better. British criminals are bad enough, you shouldn't import even more demographics of people who are highly likely to perform even more horrific criminal acts.
I live in Canada. I had no idea that Sunak was crazy. It seems to me that the UK has to stop all migration except legal migration while it processes the cases it has and it sends back the ones who don't qualify. It can stop the boats with UK ships before they land by forcing them to stop and loading the illegals onto the ships which then take them back to where they came from. This may break some law with the EU. If it does, the EU should be challenged in court and if that's not possible, then do it anyway.
that bill is ridiculous court "Rwanda isent safe" government "nuta its super duper safe and im going to force you to agree with me because we live in a democracy and nothing says democracy like forcing people to agree with your fringe decisions"
I am so confused. Why is the U.K. sending immigrants to another county? Why did Rawanda agree to this insane plan? This sounds like something from a parody.
little england you wanted an INDIAN billionaire to rule you but not to stay inthe civilized environment of the EU...cherio we love it ..free comedy..😂😂🎉🎉
This sounds like something suggested in exasperation that was accepted because it solved a deadlocked conversation. Parliament seems to be full of insufferable guests that don't want to leave.
You say Sunak adopted the Rwanda policy to "win over the right of his party" but how do you know that, on immigration, Sunak is not on the right of his party himself? He could be as emotionally committed to it as Braverman is.
There are 93,296 Asylum seekers in the UK according to the refugee council. 9.3 million people in the country faced food insecurity according to big issue in January this year. Yet this pathetic racist excuse of a Government chooses to hyper focus on those vulnerable people and completely neglect the other issue.
All of the reasons in the supreme court decision could be avoided by just give these people some place outside of Europe to live while being safe. Of course, without the amenities and opportunities of a life in Europe.
He doesn’t seem to realise that no one is believing this will solve the issue of not securing our borders. With any luck it fails and he’s gone. Perhaps next time the Conservative Party will realise it’s not a great idea to allow the media to dictate who should be leader.
Rwanda's "Plan" is clearly a violation of international law ... And racist, it considers all African "black" from the same ethnicity/origin. Africa is a HUGE continent, the Africans are NOT the same.
Also worth noting the Rwanda proposal is largely meant to deal with men- thus treating one gender as second-class, in that it largely focuses on removing men from the humane and legal protections offered in the UK.
Imagine spending all the time, money and effort on a pointless plan that doesn't fix a perceived issue. We too it all and fixed the many actual issues facing the country. Of course, as with Brexit it feels more and more like we are becoming the cautionary tale of somewhere that used to be important, thinking they're better than everyone else and walking ourselves off of a cliff with pride.
I find the concept of an international law to be difficult. Ignoring the video context for a moment, how does the UN make something unlawful? Once the governance power of the people has been abstracted that many layers away from the populace itself, how can it be legitimate?
International laws prevent wars. Most of them were created after major conflicts because we learned from the past. Unfortunately we've been born in a time when no one remembers them. So the public seems quite happy to walk themselves back into them.
International treaties aren't enforced unless the country submits to enforcement. The people of the nation still have the power to vote in parties that will break international treaties. No major parties would do this on any meaningful scale though, because it is diplomatic suicide. I mean look at Brexit. That was one treaty and the UK has fully cooked itself and its future.
@@Aldeni1551 some do, for sure. However, some could be seen as government overreach. With governing bodies as big as the EU or the US Fed, it's nice to think that because we vote for the people that vote for the laws, our interests are still represented; however, nuance is easily lost the more layers you go through. You have a valid point that we don't know how good we've got it in some areas. Maybe we (as a society) need to lose some of that protection to regain that appreciation? Might be a necessary phase.
@@SocialDownclimber I think that process may be a necessary one to retain appreciation for how good we've got it, to revivify our connection to government and civil responsibility in general. Not saying going full chaos theory is a good call, but a forced peek under the hood of civilization might be a necessary struggle.
@@nickhahn3276 If the electorate learns that they have ultimate responsibility, then it is valuable. I haven't seen much progress with the education of the electorate though.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
It is about time the Tories started doing their squabbling in opposition instead of taking the country down with them.
they are still dragging the UK down, opposition or not. the damage has been done. you can only try and lessen the blows now.
What’s the labor plan really?
As a Rwandan living in the UK for a decade, this has been…interesting to observe to say the least
Do you keep up with news from Rwanda? Is this making the headlines over there as much as it is here?
What is this policy seen as from the Rwandan perspective?
Like they don't care about the UK border crossings, so do they have some incentive like "diversifying the population" or encouraging tourism or what?
@@aceman0000099money
@@aceman0000099Rwanda is being paid an enormous amount of money to host a small number of refugees. It is typical Tory government outsourcing.
@@aceman0000099 I don't know what it is for the average citizen (they might not even care tbh), but for the government it's a great day.
They've been paid almost a quarter billion by the UK and haven't had to do much of anything. And I'm sure even they're aware of how much a waste of money pursuing a policy like this is, as opposed to just bolstering your own immigration infrastructure and clearing the back log.
It's not like all those asylum applications are even going to be granted anyway, and this is before you realise these "small boats", and "out of control illegal immigration" accounts for less than 2% of total immigration to the UK, they probably think those British politicians are stupid lol.
The Conservatives entire strategy at this point is hope that Starmer and Labour screw up in some form that causes a shift in the opinion. The problem is even on the occasions Starmer and Labour do screw up (e.g. Gaza, Rachel Reeves Plagiarism row, ect.) its often completely overshadowed but some new (or renewed) scandal in the Conservatives.
The fact is people are already fed up and just want the General Election to happen already so we can all move on.
And that general election will just see that the show continues. Vote and you simply consent establishment to continue destroying our liberties and dignity - regardless of who you're voting.
Politics never moves on, there is hidden dirt in every political party. Humans stay the same.
@The_Phoenix_Saga yes but not voting is enabling a broken government to continue to barely function for at least another 4 years.
You're saying this as if not voting will be some sort of "gotcha" for the people in power, when all it will do is cause mass complacency, which is the complete opposite of what anybody wants, including you I'm assuming.
@@bluegoose7832 On the contrary, without the vote, there is no legal basis. The vote is the signing of a contract that expires upon the next vote and so on and without that, establishment cannot justify itself.
Your argument is the red herring that the establishment depends on people falling for. A lack of order, but who's I wonder is at stake. A little fear is all it takes to control the masses and the illusion of choice within the system is the perfect remedy to placate them.
The only mass complacency has come about as of those becoming too dependant on the state to support them. That in itself is by design- the people are too timid, too limited and too weak to do by themselves and for that among other reasons is why I can say confidently that we as a people like so many other places are doomed to fail and revert right back to submissive obedience like establishment is hoping for.
They don't want people to think for themselves, they want people to be obedient by choice: smart enough to run the machines but just stupid enough to not ask questions.
As George Carlin put "It's a club and you're not in it. It's why they call it 'The American Dream' because you need to be asleep to believe it." And the same there is the same here. The greatest trick a dictator plays is coaxing the people that they made the choice to put them there. And ironically they always do because of two simple words "Its easier" easier to live in the illusion of freedom then to actually be free, because people balk at the idea of personal responsibility and accountability. Why do you think people began voting in these lunatics in the first place??
Tories have had 13 years to perfect this technique.
The reason I struggle with policies like the Rwanda saga is because even if you removed your personal political beliefs, its just a terrible plan that costs too much and wont actually change the 'problem'. If migration is a genuine concern to conservatives, then tackling actual migration and not getting headlines is just a far better investment of time and money. This policy is the 'juice cleanse ' of the politics world 😂
Yeah, ultimately asylum seekers are a small part of any issues arising from immigration. Making overseas countries better would reduce asylum seekers. Building more houses would reduce the pressure in the UK etc.
@@lonyo5377let's not forget that the UK is responsible for a lot of those refugees and immigrants. It's our foreign policy that has and keeps on destroying other countries. It's only normal that then people will flow to safer, stabler countries where they can live and prosper.
@@lonyo5377the problem with trying to make other countries better is most of the time all of the aid and money they’ve had never gets to the people who need it.
@@kobalos73they don’t prosper though. How many of these boat people end up with high paying jobs and great careers. None. Most of them end up working in old petrol stations cleaning cars or as delivery drivers.
@@adv8nturenick yes my privileged friend. That's prosperity when you compare it with a war zone and refugee camps in the desert. At least this way they can work hard and dream of a better future for their children. They will be able to send them to schools, educate them, maybe even uni.
This is just insane. So the Supreme Court lists 5 very basic reasons why Rwanda is not safe. Sunaks response to this is to pass legislation that says it is safe? WTF!?
"Nuh uh" - Rishi Sunak to the courts
Gunning camel
What do YOU TUB have against GURNING.
Pretty soon the Tories will pass a law saying housing prices are fine and no one is allowed to say differently. And a law saying the all Tories are smart handsome guys.
The Supreme court knows so much more than what British govt likes to admit. The supreme court knows Rwanda is a War mongering country that is responsible for worst War ever in Africa,meaning the 2nd Congo War. They also know that Rwanda is also responsible for displacing hundreds of thousands of people in Great Lakes region as they support M23 rebels. Last but not least,the Court knows that Rwanda is heading towards another War with Congo,this time it could be inside Rwanda’s doorstep,so it’s not safe place to send refugees.
Giving away hundreds of thousands of £s whilst our nation is suffering the biggest drop in living conditions for a scheme that has more holes than Swiss cheese with its clauses and and no chance of happening but is still costing us millions more is insane. Its absolutely insane.
Much more like ££££'s millions. It's a complete and utter batsht crazy plan that hasn't got a hope of working. . . but let's splash £290 million (and counting) on it.
@@Besthinktwice No it isn't. Why don't you actually research what conditions are like in Rwanda these days?
Hmm, quite racist for you to assume all African nations are poor places to live... /s
It IS a poor place to live. The £290mil we've already sent makes up about 2.5% of their GDP. @@MegaShrooom
@@MegaShrooomWhy don't you volunteer to emigrate there yourself then? £450m to send 200 asylum seekers to sub-Saharan Africa. A unit cost of £2.5 million per deportee. Repugnant and utterly stupid.
@@MegaShrooom I think I'll take the word of the appeals court, the supreme court, historical incidences and more over some random youtuber :)
Imagine being so horrific that the Rwandan government thinks you are too inhumane. Makes one think about all the choices that delivered us to this point in history.
Britain got rich trading African slaves and invented concentration camps in South Africa, this is the same old Tories
I partially agree, but don’t pretend that Rwanda is your average African country. They’re one of the safest and cleanest countries on the continent, at least if you ignore what’s going on just across the border in DRC. But that conflict hasn’t reached Rwandas borders anyway. Rwanda really isn’t that bad, but I still think this is a dumb plan
TBF England is one of the worst countries in human history so don’t get too down brits
@@bababababababa6124 It is technically one of the safest and least corrupt countries in Africa. People here tend to get hyperbolic when they talk about the place.
But you're incorrect about the conflict, it has reached their north western border, it's the one place in the country that isn't safe to go too because it's quite literally happening there.
And the way it's looking right now it could progress into a war. Can't send refugees to a *potential* warring nation. Especially when the safety you sold the plan on may have been compromised by the host country.
(That's before the obvious human rights violations you'd have to step over to even suggest such an idea).
@@bababababababa6124there are 208,000 rwandan refugees still in the DRC and other African countries. Why doesn't rwanda start with taking their country women and men back home.
The UK really has gone completely batshit crazy...
@@Besthinktwice Why should Europe be an exception? The whole world is going bonkers. 😟
@@BesthinktwiceI think the public would be more accepting of far right policy if they were applied effectively and efficiently. This...isnt that
Except that the eu now will also send immigrants to rwanda, will you be a person of integrity and call them insane too? Dont feel pressured I have 0 expectations of you
@@e33d90 they are insane for even considering it
@@wich1 just give the bbc a couple weeks to turn the topic around, and repeat their message enough so even you will support sending immigrants to rwanda, or are you a eurosceptic perhaps????
This is such a stupid policy. Mind bogglingly stupid.
How can any thinking person have come up with it and how can any thinking person think it might somehow work and achieve anything apart from filling the coffers of the Rwandan government and plenty of lawyers?
@@PEdulisthinking person?? Tory MP ? I think you've answered your own question
@@PEdulis The reason they're pushing it is because it's a way to seem Tough On Immigration, to appease the "I'm not racist but" cadre of Little Englanders.
I personally think it is hilarious that the Tories have responded to the statement that Rwanda isn't safe with legislation that officially states "nuh uh".
On first glance it's hilarious, on second glance it's horrifying because it indicates a fundamental flaw in the established separation of powers, if the legislative can just pass laws to specifically invert the judicative's rulings.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Perhaps now the eu is also going to send immigrants to rwanda the court might reconsider lmao
@@e33d90yeah the whole world has now gone down the gutter
@@GeminiEntropic calm down
It's a lot of effort for a (judicially ruled illegal) policy that will ultimately not deter migrants because y'know, people will always keep trying to get into the UK.
If boats will become too hard, they'll get on trucks.
If trucks become too hard, they'll find another way.
Its best we find a better way to regulate them coming in, rather than try to stop them from coming altogether (which would be impossible).
@@breakdown3317 We just need more people to process who comes. The reason for the backlog is because we have no one processing them, and the focus is stopping anyone in the first place. Once you process them then you can rightfully decide if they can be here or not.
@@hazelcrispand we need safe routes. That would stop the boats immediately.
@@mdog2501 Agreed
@@Besthinktwicethis makes me think about the aging crisis many first world countries are facing. Their economies could shrink and crash if they age out too far and don’t replace their population, but they still won’t let immigrants in. Makes you think if this is God trying to send a message
EU court: "Rwanda isn't a safe country."
British government: "Yes it is. See, we've passed a bill that says it is."
Not an EU court, actually.
Probably from the time of Henry V111
It’s a *British* court, though. Which is especially hilarious.
EU is now also considering sending immigrants to rwanda you muppet
What really gets me is when they bang on about Labour having no alternative, like arent the Tories the ones in power for the last 14 YEARS!?
Classic Tory trick, they cock something up, then blame Labour who haven't been in government for the last decade.
Labour does have an alternative. Open borders! Labour is a friend to the Calais smugglers
Yes but labour keep voting against any bill that would restrict, reduce or limit illegal immigration.
@@eddiecalderone [citation needed]
Labour have got a much cheaper alternative. They will send all the people who cross back to France. Once it becomes widely known that the return journey is automatic far fewer people will risk the crossing.
I wish all it took for a country to be peaceful and safe was for big Rishi to sign a bill saying the country is peaceful and safe
Sunak just found cheat codes for reality. Just pass a law saying what ever you want to be true is true. Tories could solve the climate crisis today by just passing a law saying it is fine.
It's such a corporate solution.
Legislating what ruling a court is allowed to make is insane on its face.
If I grew up in a one nation Tory house, was middle class and believed that a combination of Iraq and a ketchup sandwich had sealed the fate of the Labour Party forever…. I’d be panicking right now.
it's amazing to watch a party destroy itself.
You have not commented on the fact that the treaty states that we will take refugees from Rwanda if their application for refugee status in Rwanda fails; hence Chris Heaton-Harris was asked a pretty simple question related to Rwanda. Is it possible that some people will come from the African country before asylum seekers are sent from the UK to Rwanda? He could not answer, or didn't want to answer. BBC Breakfast 07:40 09/12/2023
... Meaning that, given most Rwanda refugee applications fall through, sending them to Rwanda in the first place is a massive waste of time and money.
Tories having problems in the parliamentary party? No change there, ask John Major.
Or thatcher pre 1983, and after 1989
@@Saoirse_don_Phalaistín awful isn't it 😉
Lovely peas though
If only the Tories would devote as much time and effort into dealing with issues that the British people are actually concerned with, such as cost of living crisis and crumbling public services.
they care ALOT about the immigraton. thats by far the most important topic
if it doesn't make a profit for them, they will ignore it. Western capitalism 101.
Senior politicians of the country and political party that primarily created the European Convention of Human Rights want to withdraw from it. The convention created in the WWII aftermath to bury fascism for good.
You know what's even more funny. Geopolitics might well end up kerploding the bill even further because, as a pervious TLDR global video pointed out, there's a serious risk that Rwanda becomes an active war zone in the near future which would absolutely give cause for the Supreme Court to overule the bill
Tories will just pass a law declaring that there is no war.
Tories have started taking policy direction from children's shows. There is no war in Ba Sing Se.
Can UK supreme court decide to overrule laws?
It would make more sense to deport the Tories and their supporters to Rwanda.
I finally understand it. It isn’t anything to do with safety, policies, politics, or agendas.
It all boils down to the astronomical costs of lawyer fees in the UK & Rwanda
The issue of if Rwanda is a safe country is pretty simple. The Tories are trying to use the threat of being sent there as a deterrent to stop refugees. If Rwanda was a safe country it would not be much of a deterrent would it.
What a first world citizen take. If Rwanda is safe, it won't stop the persecuted ones but it surely will stop those who want to migrate due to the economic reasons
@@dmytronazaryk681 Those who try to claim refugee status for economic reasons are already deported, it is already not a valid reason for refugee status. None of them will get in if the government simply processes the claims according to the existing laws.
It is kind of sad that you do not know that.
*military aged economic migrants
I am with Sunak and Rwanda.
You should make a video on all the major party factions
Let's decree Rwanda safe. And while we're at it - let's decree there are no homeless people in UK. And presto - homelessness solved! But why stop there?! There are more decrees Tories can vote in: crime, inflation; and after all - who said PI has to be 3.14?
Why the heck did Rwanda even agree to this? It seems like the UK is getting all the benfits of this
Lots of money paid to Rwanda
Rwanda gets to send migrants who commit crimes to Britain as well as send any asylum seekers to Britain in exchange for the asylum seekers coming to Britain
Money, political clout, migrant labour. Rwanda is a pretty rapidly growing economy and one of the most stable in Africa right now. That's not to excuse that they do have problems but they are clearly seeking more global recognition and respect, not just within it's immediate sphere of influence.
£200m for 0 refugees taken in seems like an excellent deal
£300 million reasons
I know Rwanda wants to be stylised as the Singapore of Africa, but still
Wow! Who would have thought that being stupid and hateful isn't a solid foundation from which to build?
Thanks for clarifying this topic! Very interesting (from USA here)
Why cannot this Government listen to public opinion and the voice of the people they are supposed to represent.
Feedback: 1) you start by wanting to discuss the plan, but don’t make a single reference to the UK having to take an unspecified quantity of asylum seekers whose claims are being processed in Rwanda; 2) you’ve not mentioned that the UK can only see 100 asylum seekers to Rwanda (according to UK Supreme Court papers); 3) no mention on how much has already been paid to Rwanda, nor how much would be given to Rwanda, per asylum seeker per year; 4) time index 4:36 attributes the quote to the Supreme Court instead of Jenrick Thanks for taking the time to create this video, and for listening to my comments.
Really feels like the dam broke the moment johnson left
A news site spelling controversial contraversial in big letters across the screen is controversial.
"Water tight" after showing "stop the boats", that's on purpose.
It made me chuckle
Wow. Wish we had protections for human rights like the European Court’s here in the United States 😒
Oh imagine that? A foreign court telling the USA what to do?
@@eddiecalderone LIKE the European court. Not THE European court. We don’t have a good track record of listening to our own citizens, and listening to someone in another country, well….them’s fightin’ words 😉
You're as guilty as the BBC and the Tory Press for not giving all the details.
Its not just sending refugees to Rwanda to be assessed; it's sending a maximum of 200 refugees a year for 5 years, in exchange for an unspecified number of refugees from Rwanda being sent to the UK that could easily be more than 200 per year and be sent at any time.
Plus the UK has to pay for the upkeep of the refugees in Rwanda in addition to the tens of millions spent bribing the Rwandan government.
Also any refugees that commit any crime at all will be sent back to the UK, so we can only send the ones who will behave themselves. This isn't a deterrent at all.
That's crazy-why on earth would anyone vote for this bill?? It's both unethical and illogical!
So given the Rwanda fiasco was supposed to *lower* immigration, why did the UK accept a deal limiting how many refugees they could deport to a country which can send an unlimited amount of refugees to the UK?
You're completely wrong.
Rewanda said back in July they, could not accommodate, as in put in accommodation currently any more than 200 refuges. To which the Tory government said they will pay for many more and upscale accommodation very quickly. So it's not sending a maximum of 200 a year for 5 years. That is not part of the policy and is actually even more stupid than the actual plan.
@@rynabuns It isn't a policy designed to help the situation. It was just intended as political grandstanding to try and appear as though they were doing something.
It's not hard no passport no entry
@@Besthinktwice You should flee to the closest safe country, not the the richest countries in the world.
Rwanda to declare war on Congo, two very safe nations, for bullet sales. Nevermind, Rishi to pass law declaring "ha, never happened!".
And on top of that. There are 208,000 rwandan refugees in congo. Who haven't gone back to their home country. Yet rwanda is busy taking in other people instead of their country men and women in refuge camps in other African countries.
How hard is it to deport criminals
How can politicians willing break international law? How has it got this bad?
Just wondering how many people have claimed asylum from Rwanda in the past couple of years, given how safe a country it is.
3:42 "Contraversial" TLDR definitely need to use a spell checker 🙂
Hilarious
This is some 19th century ass political issue. Can literally imagine HH Asquith dealing with this.
Just a reminder the facilities in Rwanda can only hold 200 migrants. 200. What a JOKE.
The Rwanda Plan is like something out of the 1800s
Tommy Wiseau, as the Tory Party, "Sunak, you are tearing me apart!" 😣
450 million to Rwanda for a deal that would see no more than 200 asylum seekers deported. In exchange for a reciprocal deal to send Rwandan asylum seekers to Britain. In addition, any deportees who commit a crime in Rwanda, can be returned to Britain. The worst deal negotiated in history. Apart from being morally repugnant, it's just an absolutely crap deal.
That's a horrid deal no wonder the Tories don't want to vote for it.
Given that cost per migrant, you could probably just give them a flat and a grant to start their own business, and it would end up more economical.
If the government passes a law to say a square has 3 sides, doesn’t make it true.
Same with passing a law saying another country is safe
They are in serious danger of becoming a classical fascist party. And believely me that this is NOT A WORD I use lightly.
i know it scares me, only 800,000 this year were let in we are now practically a fascist state under the tories. i worry we will never make the uk's native population the hated minatory we wish they were.
The problem is Mr Sunak is that still ain't going to stop them is it,that's where the action needs to be
didnty rwanda have the fast3st and most intense genocide ever about 30 years ago? And it was all started by someone on the radio?
Have you counted how many children have been stabbed in the UK this year.
Rwanda is one of the worlds safest countries in 2023. We have to be fair in judgement
@@tremarley9648 yes.... Let's do a comparison.
So 900,000 killed in 8 months is Rwanda.
All murders per year in the UK. 500.
Percentage of murders that are children.
30.
Let's see, 900,000/30
Is 30,000.
As percentage
3,000,000%
So Rwanda had 3 million percentage more murders through one 8 month period than a year in general of child murders
Let's go all murders since 1993, when they had the genocide.
Average of 500 a year for 30 years is
15000,
So 15,000 / 900,000
15/900
5/300
Less than 2% of that died in the genocide.
I seriously think you are either deluded or might have been hit in the head with a spade as a kid.
If I were religious, I would pray for the UK.
As I'm not, I just watch from outside with a concerned face and a bowl of popcorn.
This is just insane...
Even the country which has been described as unsafe, don't want to go as far as the Tories and contravene international law! They really are extremely far right and we should all be worried they want to take away our human rights. Because don't forget, if you exit the convention on human rights, that takes those rights from EVERYONE, not just immigrants! Ask yourself what a rich business owners / Tory donors get out of this and you start to understand why they're pushing so hard for it. Scary stuff!
Im bot brittish so I cant say i know everything but do u honestly belive they want that, dont u think it would be a new law implemented without some of the issues they have with the current law?
@@nenasiek Absolutely. It's not difficult to see rich and powerful people doing what they can to hold on to power. They don't care about the country, only enriching themselves. And if you take away people's rights, you take away their power and they become much easier to control, manipulate and outright profit from. They recently changed the law to make protesting much more difficult, and were then granted billions of pounds worth of new oil deals. They used to do this stuff behind closed doors, but now it's out in the open.
A better way to fix migration issues would be to put this money being used to deport them is to put it into affordable housing and education
The scheme costs us £240million, for maybe 1,000 refugees (so £240,000 per refugee). Also the UK takes an equivalent number of Rwandan refugees back to the UK.
It's worse than that but the reason the right wing of the party want this particularly the EDF and Nat cons is to remove our human rights by leaving the echr. They've already removed some protest and workers rights and this was one of the reasons for brexit. Deregulate the uk and remove all our rights. That's why they're pushing rwanda and bang on about the echr
This title was great
Phil Moorhouse has been hammering away at this for about 2 weeks. Welcome to the party!
We basically have a defacto coalition government. With none of the benefits and all of the drawbacks.
Why are the conservatives so fixated on this Rwanda plan.
Israel tried it and the migrants just tried again and went to the Netherlands because the israeli government gave each migrant 3500usd.
so they go to netherland instead of israel. that means the plan worked.
@@rizkyadiyanto7922 they went to Israel cause they couldn't afford the EU.
The UK is just about the hardest EU country to get into other than maybe Finland and Norway.
Anyone trying for the UK probably has a reason to do so and will try again
If the ECHR said the policy violates the European Convention of Human rights, and its decision is supposed to be binding, why wasn't that the end of this policy?
I hadn't heard of this before, and it was better that way.
3:43 controversial not contraversial just fyi
What rock do they crawl out from
I think that if Labour, when they get in the government next year, passes voting reform to get rid of first past the post system, that might actually mean the end of Conservative party and likely left wing electoral dominance for quite a long while. Because right now it seems like the Conservative party is actually three or four different parties held together only by their mutual dislike of Labour. If people could vote for who they wanted instead of who they feared a likely outcome would be a de facto split of the Conservative party and a birth of several new right wing parties which would then struggle to compete with the single Labour party.
I only want to know one thing: will we have another pm before the next general election? No. 10 suddenly looks like one of those American motels in LA.
They can't afford to, next general election is less than a year away and a big reason as to why the Tories are polling so badly is the ministerial musical chairs that's been happening for the last 8 years
It would be an utterly crazy thing for the Tories to do. So that means there's at least a 50% chance it will happen.
This is the hill the Conservatives are willing to die on, rather than dealing with actual issues that are crippling the country.
Unfortunately, looking at front pages of Express, Mail, Spectator, Telegraph and one minute of GB News will tell you that A LOT of people where you live think Rwanda is essential, fair and urgent.
Bringing in refugees and migrants has only ever had a POSITIVE effect on the local economy. The VAST VAST majority of studies into the economic effects of immigration have concluded that the long term effects of having a large population of able bodied people enter the country and workforce has lead to growth in the economy. Britain has had growth issues the past 15 years, but no one mentions that the UK enjoyed a period of increased growth throughout the 90's partly caused by an influx of Eastern European refugees...
I am sure that makes the teenage victims of Muslim grooming gangs feel so much better. British criminals are bad enough, you shouldn't import even more demographics of people who are highly likely to perform even more horrific criminal acts.
Poor Rishi my heart is breaking for him!
One can only hope you believe yourself to be amusing.
What a horrible solution by Sunak!
I live in Canada. I had no idea that Sunak was crazy. It seems to me that the UK has to stop all migration except legal migration while it processes the cases it has and it sends back the ones who don't qualify. It can stop the boats with UK ships before they land by forcing them to stop and loading the illegals onto the ships which then take them back to where they came from. This may break some law with the EU. If it does, the EU should be challenged in court and if that's not possible, then do it anyway.
that bill is ridiculous court "Rwanda isent safe" government "nuta its super duper safe and im going to force you to agree with me because we live in a democracy and nothing says democracy like forcing people to agree with your fringe decisions"
Idgaf about this policy. I want the cost of living fixed and nhs waiting lists to come down.
I am so confused. Why is the U.K. sending immigrants to another county? Why did Rawanda agree to this insane plan?
This sounds like something from a parody.
Because they would be paid to take them!
little england you wanted an INDIAN billionaire to rule you but not to stay inthe civilized environment of the EU...cherio we love it ..free comedy..😂😂🎉🎉
Have you actually been to Rwanda because I have it's a great place to live
Poor Rishi Sunak. One of the most intelligent current PM, but tied to failing party. 😢
Interesting that UK pulled Rwanda into their internal politics. Reminds one of colonial days.
This sounds like something suggested in exasperation that was accepted because it solved a deadlocked conversation. Parliament seems to be full of insufferable guests that don't want to leave.
The uk saying Rwanda can’t relocate asylum seekers/refugees, but there’s not guarantee they won’t??!
Imagine if they put this much effort into, you know, running the country...
You say Sunak adopted the Rwanda policy to "win over the right of his party" but how do you know that, on immigration, Sunak is not on the right of his party himself? He could be as emotionally committed to it as Braverman is.
There are 93,296 Asylum seekers in the UK according to the refugee council. 9.3 million people in the country faced food insecurity according to big issue in January this year. Yet this pathetic racist excuse of a Government chooses to hyper focus on those vulnerable people and completely neglect the other issue.
Rwanda will agree to anything you ask them as long as they get the money. If they adhere to it is another question entirely.
All of the reasons in the supreme court decision could be avoided by just give these people some place outside of Europe to live while being safe. Of course, without the amenities and opportunities of a life in Europe.
He doesn’t seem to realise that no one is believing this will solve the issue of not securing our borders. With any luck it fails and he’s gone. Perhaps next time the Conservative Party will realise it’s not a great idea to allow the media to dictate who should be leader.
The UK as a human trafficking state of the most vulnerable 😢
this is the perfect time for a 3rd party to appear in the UK and get some headway
Rwanda's "Plan" is clearly a violation of international law ...
And racist, it considers all African "black" from the same ethnicity/origin. Africa is a HUGE continent, the Africans are NOT the same.
Somebody had to removed Sunak from his office he is wasting taxpayers money.Billions are wasted on Rwanda and no migrant send
Also worth noting the Rwanda proposal is largely meant to deal with men- thus treating one gender as second-class, in that it largely focuses on removing men from the humane and legal protections offered in the UK.
Insane
So much money for something that will never work.
Don't gov knows this is not rich country any more
Imagine spending all the time, money and effort on a pointless plan that doesn't fix a perceived issue. We too it all and fixed the many actual issues facing the country.
Of course, as with Brexit it feels more and more like we are becoming the cautionary tale of somewhere that used to be important, thinking they're better than everyone else and walking ourselves off of a cliff with pride.
I find the concept of an international law to be difficult. Ignoring the video context for a moment, how does the UN make something unlawful? Once the governance power of the people has been abstracted that many layers away from the populace itself, how can it be legitimate?
International laws prevent wars. Most of them were created after major conflicts because we learned from the past.
Unfortunately we've been born in a time when no one remembers them.
So the public seems quite happy to walk themselves back into them.
International treaties aren't enforced unless the country submits to enforcement. The people of the nation still have the power to vote in parties that will break international treaties. No major parties would do this on any meaningful scale though, because it is diplomatic suicide. I mean look at Brexit. That was one treaty and the UK has fully cooked itself and its future.
@@Aldeni1551 some do, for sure. However, some could be seen as government overreach. With governing bodies as big as the EU or the US Fed, it's nice to think that because we vote for the people that vote for the laws, our interests are still represented; however, nuance is easily lost the more layers you go through.
You have a valid point that we don't know how good we've got it in some areas. Maybe we (as a society) need to lose some of that protection to regain that appreciation? Might be a necessary phase.
@@SocialDownclimber I think that process may be a necessary one to retain appreciation for how good we've got it, to revivify our connection to government and civil responsibility in general.
Not saying going full chaos theory is a good call, but a forced peek under the hood of civilization might be a necessary struggle.
@@nickhahn3276 If the electorate learns that they have ultimate responsibility, then it is valuable. I haven't seen much progress with the education of the electorate though.
All the other insanity aside, what do they propose should happen when a Rwandan seeks asylum in the UK, due to persecution in Rwanda?
This whole deal is marred with inconsistencies, but saying Rwanda is not a safe country is just ignorant.
Rwanda is safe...
Nice, more newspeak for our dictionary!
FR LOVE THE 1984 REFERENCE