Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "HIGHLIGHTS: Prime Minister Rishi Sunak faces questions over UK's 'broken' asylum system" video.

Hi @TheAlexashton It appears you believe that bills are legislated based on a single majority vote in the house and that a minority opposition therefore has no power. This is not at all how the Westminster system functions and indeed minority oppositions still play a vital role in the creation of a bill. At the second reading of the bill in the lower house there is a vote and as all governments rule by holding the majority of the house this vote usually makes it through. However that is not where the process ends, not by a long shot. It moves on to committee after passing the second reading where both government and opposition have equal representation, and both sides can make amendments to the bill. The cabinet office describes it like this; "Committee stage This is a line-by-line consideration of the detail of the bill. In the Commons this process may be carried out by a specially convened committee of MPs (a Public Bill Committee) that reflects the strength of the parties in the House as a whole. Alternatively committee stage may be taken in the chamber (in which case it is called Committee of the Whole House). In the Lords the committee stage will take place in the chamber or a committee room in the Palace of Westminster; either way any peer can participate. A Public Bill Committee in the Commons can take oral and written evidence on the bill. In either House the committee will decide whether each clause of the bill should remain in it, and will consider any amendments tabled by the government or other members. The amendments tabled may propose changes to the existing provisions of the bill or may involve adding wholly new material. However, there are limits to what can be added to a particular bill, as the amendments must be sufficiently close to its subject matter when introduced. Government amendments to bills (in committee or at other stages: see below) may be changes to make sure the bill works as intended, may give effect to new policy or may be concessionary amendments to ease the handling of the bill. Amendments in the last category will respond to points made at an earlier stage or will have been tabled to avoid a government defeat at the stage in question. Unless the amendments are purely technical in their effect, they will need the agreement of PBL Committee before they can be tabled, and substantial changes in policy will need policy clearance too." Opposition can amend a bill in committee to such a point even the government no longer wish to proceed. Furthermore, at the third reading of the bill the opposition do indeed have the ability to block a bill even in minority. Bills likewise must pass between the houses and peers sympathetic to the position of the opposition can squash a bill. Finally the bill must be presented to the crown and his majesty may send a bill back for further amendment before giving royal ascent. Under the Westminster system both sides of the house have meaningful input and control over a bill. It prevents a government coming in and utterly destroying a country. Oppositions are a check and balance. The Rwanda bill as it stands needs amendment. It's a very British, soft take on the Australian model that won't work as well. The reason the Australian model works is because it's so harsh and done without regard to their humanity. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind. Like that time 9 Sri Lankan men had their claims rejected on a technicality and were sent back. Australian officials knew those men were going to be executed, so they sent a team to document it and their execution became part of an ad campaign to stop people trying to come to Australia. Human rights orgs went nuts for decades over the Australian model, but it worked. Illegal immigration fell dramatically. The boats stopped. Babies stopped dying at sea in their way to Australia. The model works. It works because you crush hope in economic migrants not only by denying entry but by showing them their lives will be significantly worse if they try. The Rwanda policy needs to follow suit. It needs to get tougher. Remove the chance of Rwanda and just make it a policy of all chanel intercepts. Deploy the navy into the chanel and sink the boats, send all occupants to Rwanda. It takes a little time for the message to filter through, for their hope to be crushed, a few years; but the boats will stop. Labor need to facilitate that by backing the policy. Australian Labor backed the policy in Australia, it had full by-partisan support. Only the greens opposed it in Australia. Labor should support it in the UK.
1
@lovetrainsme7970 You don't seem to quite understand the Rwanda policy. You're looking at short term cost and deciding higher long term cost and dissolved borders is somehow better. I think we can both agree that Rwanda is an undesirable destination. That's the entire point of selecting it. The human rights violations and fact it isn't a signatory to the UDHR are all positive points that led to it's selection. If you're an economic migrant looking to go to the UK, and instead you end up in a significantly worse situation in Rwanda, you're going to tell your friends and family back home whom will think twice about trying to make the journey. It's a deterrent, do you understand what that means? Perhaps more importantly, if you're in an Albanian gang trafficking women and children for forced prostitution and you end up in freaking Rwanda... you're going to take your operations elsewhere because the economic incentives of the UK dried up. In return the UK agrees to provide some frankly exceptionally low foreign economic aid to Rwanda to help build their infrastructure and to take a number of genuine, vulnerable refugees (remember refugee is a legal status, it's not an asylum seeker) fulfilling the UKs commitment under the UDHR and '51 refugee convention. Honestly, your argument is pretty empty headed. If the cost is the same as current, but over time it decreases arrivals so to does it decrease people sent to Rwanda and the associated cost. In a decade you've gotten annual cost down to a 3rd of current expenditure verse not using a third party destination and having costs RISE over the next decade. I mean you do understand that you have to think about the future as well right, not just the present? The tory plan is a watered down version of the Australian model which absolutely and demonstrably worked in Australia, and has worked in other countries whom have copied it in the 2 decades since. There is no 1:1 swap. There is Rwanda taking and processing economic migrants, and there is the UK taking a discretionary number of refugees in return. The discretion is wholly the UKs under the agreement. The UK could take 1000 refugees a year, or it could take zero. The number can change each year. It's all up to the UK. A refugee is not an asylum seeker. A refugee is someone whom claimed asylum, had their claim processed and was found to meet the international criteria. They're not economic migrants, they're highly vulnerable people. The kinds of people the asylum system was set up to help.
1
@lovetrainsme7970 Apparently you haven't read the agreement. I have. It doesn't go far enough. 1. Whom is sent is at the discretion of the UK. This isn't 100% of claimants. It's a selective subsection of claimants. 2. Whom is likely to be a genuine claimant verse an economic migrant is broadly able to be determined on first contact. People from Albania or Pakistan for example aren't genuine claimants. 3. In the latest report, only 28% of claimants were found to meet the criteria for refugee status. 28% is LESS THAN A THIRD. 4. The agreement status they can not return to the UK. It does NOT say those found to be genuine refugees can not resettle elsewhere. So I'm sorry but my argument isn't garbage at all. There are growing international calls at the UN for the Refugees Convention to be revisited because the current system is broken. A modified version of the Australian model is most prominently suggested at the UN as something to adopt into the convention as a means to prevent exploitation by economic migrants. Not only should you try actually reading the Rwanda policy, you should attempt to understand it and the wider context as well. The Rwanda policy does not go far enough. It's a good start, but much more needs to be done to shut down economic incentives and create fear in countries with high economic migrant flows. Use the full force of the Australian model. Edit: How interesting that the comment this replies to has disappeared. Did you realise your mistake?
1
@lovetrainsme7970 lol you haven't even kept up with official asylum claim figures and don't know where to find them, but think you have any kind of relevant opinion here? Let alone have the utter gall to tell me to "read the full agreement before commenting further". Gtfo of here you empty headed nobody. It's the annual report from the home office entitled immigration statistics, year ending September 2021 and covers statistics over the 2020/21 reporting year. The report for the 2021/22 reporting year is due out later this month. You are like Truss was, completely out of your freaking depth. Come back when you've graduated high school and actually have a clue.
1
@joyepete7477 lol. What a ridiculous and stupid thing to comment. It doesn't even make sense. 🤣 You should feel embarrassed
1
@lovetrainsme7970 Holy f*** are you really this low IQ and poor at reading comprehension? From the home office website "National statistics announcement Immigration statistics, year ending September 2022 Quarterly and annual statistics relating to those: coming to the UK, extending their stay, gaining citizenship, applying for asylum, and being detained or removed, as well as immigration for work, study and family reasons, including new visa routes where these are operational. From: Home Office Published 8 November 2021 National Statistics Release date: 24 November 2022 9:30am (confirmed) These statistics will be released on 24 November 2022 9:30am" The reporting period is from September 2021 to September 2022. It hasn't been released yet. It won't be released until November 24th like I have explained twice previous to your last comment 🤦 You are ranting like a crazy person parroting partisan lines you've heard from people much more intelligent than you, and whom I guarantee would agree with me that you're doing them a great disservice. Gtfo of here, you're an embarrassment to yourself and anyone having the misfortune of association with you. Your total ignorance to anything being discussed here relieves you of the right to an opinion thereto. Goodbye. Edit: It's also worth noting there have been 90K asylum claims in the UK so far this year. That's a preliminary number, ie. it's an rough running total put out by the government quarterly but confirmed numbers aren't released until November 24. The 12K you cite is not boat arrivals, that too is a preliminary number and relates to the number of applications granted leave. Even the preliminary numbers for 2021/22 tell as similar story to 2022/21. The overwhelming majority, MORE THAN 2/3 of those making irregular boarder crossings are doing so illegally as economic migrants. Sending those people to Rwanda makes sense, it will stop them coming.
1