Comments by "TJ Marx" (@tjmarx) on "Sunak defends Eat Out to Help Out as Tories fight over Rwanda policy" video.

I'm sorry but that isn't just a false equivalence it isn't at all an accurate representation of either judgement. The court told Scotland they do not have the power under law to hold their own referendums, and that the way the modern union is constructed more or less makes it's parts more like states. The court told the government that it could in fact go forward with third country processing and that such a concept was entirely legal. It's only concern was whether Rwanda was a safe country as defined by legislation. The government is now moving to change legislation to ensure Rwanda does qualify as a safe country. Scotland does not hold the power to amend or change laws to give themselves the power to hold referendums. They must abide Westminster and ultimately the King. Very different situations.
2
@royboy565 A court can not in its own right deem anything, as anything. A court can ONLY decide on whether something meets criteria under law or not. The criteria of a law can thus be changed to ensure such criteria is met.
2
@royboy565 False. The criteria is a UK law that can be changed by the UK government. That is precisely what is happening. Courts can not create criteria, they can only interpret law.
2
@royboy565 Mate, what is so difficult for you to understand about this? The courts used a criteria set out in law by government to assess whether Rwanda met the threshold of "safe". The government is now changing the criteria. There's nothing else to it. Courts are bound by the law. If the law says Rwanda is safe, guess what the court has no choice but to rule.
2
This is categorically false. The British people have NEVER in the history of the parliamentary system EVER elected a prime minister. The UK is not yankville, and the prime minister is not the head of state. The prime minister is the government's representative. The head of state is the King. No, that isn't just a technically, nothing happens in the UK without the King being ok with it.
2
@JelMain What is "it"? One does not ratify anything by referendum, but I really am unsure what you're asking for a referendum on. I trust you're not talking about deposing the crown, that would legally be treason.
2
This is a big beat up. The bill will pass without issue. Rwanda flights will happen. The boats will stop, illegal economic migration will slow down if they go forward with student visa reforms too and things will improve over the medium term as a result.
1
@justinjoseph8491 False on all counts my dear sir. Third country processing is not at all a new idea, not by a long way. It is often referred to in this context as the Australian model, as Australia perfected the process in the 1990s - early 2000s. Every country whom tries third country processing in the Australian model succeeds in destroying people smuggling and dramatically reducing irregular border crossings for economic migration reasons. Indeed, it is many of the ex-australian politicians whom are the architects of the Australian model whom are the key advisors to the government on the Rwanda policy. The EU is too considering third country processing because it is in fact the only proven thing that works. The goal is to stop unskilled poor people trying to immigrate. It's bad for them, it's bad for us. The way to stop them is to crush their hope that they can do it, and the way to do that is to send them to another country with the same (or ideally worse) economic conditions than where they came from and make clear that's the best they can hope for. In terms of student visas, they're used as a back door to economic migration. Student visas make up the bulk of both gross and net migration. The bulk of those visas are for low end, low demand, short courses, however the visa is then used as a stepping stone to stay in the UK. For that reason the student visa system needs to be tightened up. The only people immigrating should be those with needed skills or those who can elevate the economy. Genuine asylum seekers too, but they're only temporary under international law and shouldn't have a pathway to permanency.
1
@justinjoseph8491 I'm sorry but everything you have said is objectively false. Yes, I have thoroughly refuted your claims about illegal economic migration. 30 years of evidence across multiple countries, the UN working group on the UDHR looking to incorporate the Australian model into international asylum law, all say you are completely wrong. No, the number of illegal economic migrants is not small. The number is incredibly high and growing. The percentage given leave to stay under an ECHR technically is insane. To be clear leave to stay is NOT refugee status. Only 13% of irregular border crossings are found to be genuine asylum seekers yet 87% are given leave to stay largely on compassionate grounds. You can't play the system on compassionate grounds if you aren't even in the UK as you're processed. We aren't talking about a small number of people here. There's 24,000 people currently in the UK earmarked for the first wave to Rwanda. Any irregular border crossings from countries not known to have conditions which would qualify for asylum such as Pakistan, will be immediately sent to Rwanda going forward. They are estimating 130K people in the first year. The student visa system is not currently set up to align with skills shortages. The reality is you can get a student visa to do a 6 month course, attend none of the classes and get permanent residency. This is a back door being used by economic migrants to move from countries such as Pakistan into the UK. It must be stopped, and thankfully both the Tories and Labour are looking at it. Every international student who takes a degree seat at university, is a seat someone natively from the UK can't have. The UK can not handle the population increasing. The infrastructure is not there. Their presence also drives up prices including university fees.Those places should go to brits first and only international students where places would otherwise be empty.
1
@royboy565 Explain to me why I should try to re-explain something that has already been explained but based on your question you apparently lack the reading comprehension to grasp?
1
@justinjoseph8491 University spaces do work like that, and courses are regularly full. Their revenues from international students are closer to 60%, and revenues have increased ten fold on the international student model. Yes, they absolutely do push up prices. Australia has seen 50 people turn up by boat in the last 4 years. Get real mate.
1
@royboy565 I've already explained why, 3 times. If you can't bother to read and comprehend why that's your problem. No, your claim about numbers and years is outright false. Read the actual memorandum of understanding with Rwanda. There is NO limit on the number of people the UK can send to Rwanda. None. Again, 24K people currently in the UK are earmarked for the initial wave and 130K are expected to be sent in the first year. The memorandum ONLY has one single prevision for travel from Rwanda to the UK. It's subsection 11.1 which gives the UK the right to REQUEST Rwanda send a processed asylum claimant back to the UK. Your nonsense about breaking the law is a lie. They will be held in British built and funded detention facilities. If they break the law in Rwanda they will be subject to Rwandan law. They will not have cause to be sent to Britain.
1
@royboy565 I'm sorry but no. The written agreements between the UK and Rwanda are what is happening. They have 24K ready to go, that has been widely reported. Try reading the actual source document. No the courts did not say they could only send 100. Safe does not mean nice. Safe means they won't be returned to their source country before their application has been processed. It isn't a nice country, that's the point.
1
@royboy565 Roflmao. Mate, you are fibbing hard and making a clown of yourself. Again, you make statements which are not true and anyone can easily look them up to see so. The memorandum of understanding with Rwanda has no limit to transfers. The domestic policy has no limit to transfers. The home office have earmarked 24K people to go in the first wave AND LETTERS HAVE BEEN SENT. Once again, I urge you to stop reading the mail on sunday and start reading the actual legal texts. The Rwanda policy is written by the exact same Australian politicians who wrong the Australian model. The same ones. It is in fact the same thing. The UK has existing turn back and take back policies in place. Australia did not use these things for the vast majority of cases. Third country processing in Australia started with the navy purposefully sinking the boats they were crossing on, often with all the people still on the boat. Then plucking the people out of the water and transporting them directly to a third country processing centre. It was important they never touch the mainland for legal reasons. By never touching the mainland they never were able to claim asylum in Australia and as such any successful asylum claims were resettled in either the community in which they were processed or yet another country which Australia had agreements. Whilst awaiting processing they would be held in detention centres. These are nothing like the hotels used in the UK, and are essentially purposefully overcrowded prisons. Their claims were purposefully delayed for a random time between 2 to 5 years so they were essentially getting a random prison sentence. This is the intention to replicate in the Rwanda policy and as it will take place in Rwanda will not have the ECHR to stop them. They won't just be roaming around Rwanda, and pulling their claim won't help them get out faster. They will be stuck there for an undisclosed random period of time, unable to contact family back home, unable to change their minds, crowded, underfed, with only basic and essential healthcare. The stories they will go back to their countries with, will stop the flood of crossings. I am extremely familiar with the text and implementation of both of these policies. As I've already demonstrated I can quote from memory relevant subsections and their text. What an ex-civil servant says in a media interview is irrelevant. Politicians too will often say things to media that have nothing in common with the actual policy in order to make a policy sound more paletable. To understand a policy, you must actually read its text in full and any supplementary documents related to it. You are quite clearly a disingenuous commenter. For whatever reason you don't want the boats to stop, and you're willing to lie to attempt to convince others that they won't. But they will. The EU knows they will and that the number then going to the EU will increase. There have been multiple meetings about this, and it's the trigger for the EU to likewise be looking to the same third country processing policy. These are all verifiable facts. It doesn't matter if you want to accept them or not, it's objectively how things are. There's nothing left to say.
1
Not a chance. Sunak will go to the next election and the Tories will win.
1
What a farce of a media beat up. This legislation will make it through to second reading without issue and will ultimately pass. Sunak is safe in his position and this bill hypothetically not passing wouldn't impact that. There are always politicians who would like their party leader to be someone else, why don't CH4 report on the numerous labour MPs who want Starmer replaced? Oh, that's right because CH4 are part of Labours campaign.
1
@royboy565 It's pathetic how little you understand here. Rwanda doesn't have to convince a court of anything. Changing of the criteria a court must consider does in fact change the entire game. It's like going to a club with a dress code, and the bouncer who can only enforce policy says you attire doesn't meet the dress code. Then the owner changes the dress code to fit what you're wearing. The court doesn't make the rules, the government does. The court just interprets the rules the government makes and issues judgements on those opinions. It's always at the full discretion of the government to change the rules the court must consider at any point. The government has used the ruling by the court to identify the holes in existing legislation and fix them. That's a normal process between the judiciary and government. I don't really get what is so difficult for you to understand here. Is it just that you hate the idea of third country processing because you know it means the loophole closes and don't want it to happen or what?
1
@royboy565 Yeah no. The King is the head of state in practice. The "democracy" in the UK is a sham created to dispel french style revolution from the monarchy. The UK is not a real democracy, nor has it ever been one. It is a sovereign monarchy ruled by one family. The crown retains the power to create laws out of nothing, and to repeal existing ones without oversight of any kind. Not a single bill from parliament can become law without royal ascent. The process in summary is parliament making a suggestion to the crown on something being a law. No one becomes prime minister without the crown. The King decides if he wishes to invite a party leader to form a government or not. The King also retains the right to appoint his own PM of his own selection without any election taking place. The King is the ONLY person whom can dismiss a sitting PM and in fact is the ONLY person whom can dissolve parliament. Literally everything in UK politics resolves around the crown. The second house, the house of lords is an oversight house made up of the Kings family and friends. No bill even makes it to the King without their approval and you can be sure they discuss it in private with the King. In this way the King can direct policy without being seen to. The house of lords can direct the commons to change a bill, amend it, scrap it or to create legislation that they haven't yet considered. It isn't democracy, the UK has never been that and can't be whilst it remains a monarchy. There isn't even a constitution in the UK. No, a collection of parliament legislation taken together, any part of which can be changed or repealed at will is not effectively a constitution. That's a bad joke. Everything I've just said is confirmed in black and white on the UK parliament website. You don't have to take my word for it, you can read the official account which confirms what I've said is fact. As for voting, no you do not vote for a party. You don't vote for PMs either. People trying to do so is why the quality of politicians has declined and corruption increased. One votes SOLELY for their local member irrespective of party based on the merits of their individual platform. That is how the Westminster system is designed to work, and how it works in practice whether you want to participate correctly or not. Because the house of commons is merely a house where commoners can have their representatives make suggestions to the crown. Welcome to reality, you don't have even a fraction of the power or rights you imagine you do. The crown is sovereign, that means there is legally no difference between the King and Britain. They're the same thing.
1
I think Sunak is doing a terrific job. There you go, now you can't say you've never spoken to someone who wanted Sunak. There are tons of people who agree with me, perhaps if you left your echo chamber and talked civilly with people who challenge your jdeas, you might have a better view of the world. Worth noting too, give the PM is only the representative of the government elected by parliament and not the head of state, it doesn't matter whether the people want anyone to be PM. The people do not vote for PMs and PMs do not represent the people. That's not their job.
1
@royboy565 The Westminster system does not run on voting by party. At all. It is factual that the public do not vote for the PM. Again, to be exceptionally clear. The PM is the leader of the government and the representative of parliament. The PM is NOT the leader of the country. Sunak isn't in the minuses 🤣 You're living in a fairytale land.
1
He's transitioning into a media career.
1
@royboy565 Sure, I mean I guess like all pundits how good he is depends on whether you're his target audience or not. He seems to be getting ratings. But nonetheless, my point was that he isn't in hiding he's moving out of politics and into media.
1
You'll be waiting awhile. Tories will win the next election. It might be a little tight, but they'll win and Sunak will give a wink just for you.
1