FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > EUs Rwanda Scheme
EUs Rwanda Scheme
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP 5 weeks ago
|
A coalition of EU countries are planning to establish migrant processing centres in Africa.
A similar scheme was of course being set up by the last Conservative Govt but was then scrapped at huge wasted cost by Sir Kier Starmer.
With Labour's enthusiasm for all things EU will this mean the Rwanda scheme is revived, or will it mean yet more asylum seekers taking day trips from Calais to avoid this inhumane treatment? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 5 weeks ago
|
"Didn't ECHR ground the first flight that was supposed to take off carrying migrants from the UK? Will they be open to EU doing this?"
Plenty of EU countries simply ignore the ECHR as it suit - Greece and Hungary on immigration for example. There's also been multi country talks on reforming the EHCR to make immigration more manageable but UK did not take part. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Didn't ECHR ground the first flight that was supposed to take off carrying migrants from the UK? Will they be open to EU doing this?
Plenty of EU countries simply ignore the ECHR as it suit - Greece and Hungary on immigration for example. There's also been multi country talks on reforming the EHCR to make immigration more manageable but UK did not take part."
Not surprising  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *an123Man 5 weeks ago
Faversham |
" There's also been multi country talks on reforming the EHCR to make immigration more manageable but UK did not take part."
In December 2025 the UK took an active role in European talks regarding the reform of the ECHR, in relation to immigration, particularly to make it easier to deport illegal migrants. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"scrapped at huge waste"?? Don't think so. The Tories managed to spaff £700 million to transport a total of four migrants to Rwanda. Had it gone ahead, the estimated cost was projected to be £2 million PER PERSON, with a total budget of £10 billion over several years - so Labour saved the taxpayer billions by scrapping the scheme (you're welcome).
But let's all freak out at the £50 a week that we give to asylum seekers instead. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 5 weeks ago
|
""scrapped at huge waste"?? Don't think so. The Tories managed to spaff £700 million to transport a total of four migrants to Rwanda. Had it gone ahead, the estimated cost was projected to be £2 million PER PERSON, with a total budget of £10 billion over several years - so Labour saved the taxpayer billions by scrapping the scheme (you're welcome).
But let's all freak out at the £50 a week that we give to asylum seekers instead."
Did Rachel Reeves do those figures ? 🤭 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
One would imagine that the processing centre set up by the eu would actually process rather than hold, which was what the tory plan was. In being granted asylum a successful refugee would then be allowed in to the eu country, whereas our Rwanda system only allowed for successful people to be given asylum over there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 5 weeks ago
|
"All in the public domain, campadre. Or did you think those Africans would do the deal for some coloured beads and a crate of gin?"
So asylum seekers cost the country £50 a week in total? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 5 weeks ago
|
""scrapped at huge waste"?? Don't think so. The Tories managed to spaff £700 million to transport a total of four migrants to Rwanda. Had it gone ahead, the estimated cost was projected to be £2 million PER PERSON, with a total budget of £10 billion over several years - so Labour saved the taxpayer billions by scrapping the scheme (you're welcome).
But let's all freak out at the £50 a week that we give to asylum seekers instead."
And I see the '£2 million per person' figure is complete nonsense, surprisingly enough! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Who said that £50 a week was the total? Maybe clear up the straw on your way out.
£2 million per person is from the Overseas Development Institute, which has 60 years of experience on this stuff. If you prefer to believe some hacks from GB News then that's on you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 5 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
""scrapped at huge waste"?? Don't think so. The Tories managed to spaff £700 million to transport a total of four migrants to Rwanda. Had it gone ahead, the estimated cost was projected to be £2 million PER PERSON, with a total budget of £10 billion over several years - so Labour saved the taxpayer billions by scrapping the scheme (you're welcome).
But let's all freak out at the £50 a week that we give to asylum seekers instead."
this number was based on the initial figures being housed in Rwanda, what is overlooked is the idea was to ramp up to thousands which would then have been a huge saving in 2 areas. Firstly the numbers expecting to arrive dropping significantly as the scheme was seen as a deterrent, and secondly on housing, welfare and social cohesion.
The deterrent was seen to be realistic as numbers crossing dropped when the first flight was scheduled to leave, even though it was blocked from leaving. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who said that £50 a week was the total? Maybe clear up the straw on your way out.
£2 million per person is from the Overseas Development Institute, which has 60 years of experience on this stuff. If you prefer to believe some hacks from GB News then that's on you."
Migration watch says £1m a head
40 years on benefits plus a pension is over £1m
In the shorter, hotels, holiday/ airbnb accommodation (I’ve had more than a few in recent years) is prob £40k a family just for accommodation
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 5 weeks ago
|
"Who said that £50 a week was the total? Maybe clear up the straw on your way out.
£2 million per person is from the Overseas Development Institute, which has 60 years of experience on this stuff. If you prefer to believe some hacks from GB News then that's on you."
Apologies I had assumed you were trying to make a reasonable comparison. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 5 weeks ago
|
""scrapped at huge waste"?? Don't think so. The Tories managed to spaff £700 million to transport a total of four migrants to Rwanda. Had it gone ahead, the estimated cost was projected to be £2 million PER PERSON, with a total budget of £10 billion over several years - so Labour saved the taxpayer billions by scrapping the scheme (you're welcome).
But let's all freak out at the £50 a week that we give to asylum seekers instead.
this number was based on the initial figures being housed in Rwanda, what is overlooked is the idea was to ramp up to thousands which would then have been a huge saving in 2 areas. Firstly the numbers expecting to arrive dropping significantly as the scheme was seen as a deterrent, and secondly on housing, welfare and social cohesion.
The deterrent was seen to be realistic as numbers crossing dropped when the first flight was scheduled to leave, even though it was blocked from leaving. "
I think it's very likely we will see such EU schemes operating successfully in the next 5 years while Britain takes in even higher numbers at massive expense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""scrapped at huge waste"?? Don't think so. The Tories managed to spaff £700 million to transport a total of four migrants to Rwanda. Had it gone ahead, the estimated cost was projected to be £2 million PER PERSON, with a total budget of £10 billion over several years - so Labour saved the taxpayer billions by scrapping the scheme (you're welcome).
But let's all freak out at the £50 a week that we give to asylum seekers instead.
this number was based on the initial figures being housed in Rwanda, what is overlooked is the idea was to ramp up to thousands which would then have been a huge saving in 2 areas. Firstly the numbers expecting to arrive dropping significantly as the scheme was seen as a deterrent, and secondly on housing, welfare and social cohesion.
The deterrent was seen to be realistic as numbers crossing dropped when the first flight was scheduled to leave, even though it was blocked from leaving. "
The Tory plan was based on the Australian model, which ended up costing the equivalent of £1million a head. You could argue that's a "huge reduction" compared to £2million but it's still an insanely expensive way to solve a problem.
The argument that it's less than 40 years on benefits assumes that every asylum seeker is approved (they aren't) and that none of them ever work (they do). However 40 years on benefits still only costs the state £478,000, so still waaay heaper than putting them in Rwanda. And this is where the Migrant Hater argument starts to fall apart. If we can't afford to keep these people in the system, how can we afford to pay 4x as much to remove them from the system? Answer on a postcard please. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 5 weeks ago
|
""scrapped at huge waste"?? Don't think so. The Tories managed to spaff £700 million to transport a total of four migrants to Rwanda. Had it gone ahead, the estimated cost was projected to be £2 million PER PERSON, with a total budget of £10 billion over several years - so Labour saved the taxpayer billions by scrapping the scheme (you're welcome).
But let's all freak out at the £50 a week that we give to asylum seekers instead.
this number was based on the initial figures being housed in Rwanda, what is overlooked is the idea was to ramp up to thousands which would then have been a huge saving in 2 areas. Firstly the numbers expecting to arrive dropping significantly as the scheme was seen as a deterrent, and secondly on housing, welfare and social cohesion.
The deterrent was seen to be realistic as numbers crossing dropped when the first flight was scheduled to leave, even though it was blocked from leaving. "
I imagine the evidence that the scheme would be an effective deterrent was a major reason for Labour to abandon it. It is a little humiliating for Starmer to see it revived by the EU which he is desperate to rejoin. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""scrapped at huge waste"?? Don't think so. The Tories managed to spaff £700 million to transport a total of four migrants to Rwanda. Had it gone ahead, the estimated cost was projected to be £2 million PER PERSON, with a total budget of £10 billion over several years - so Labour saved the taxpayer billions by scrapping the scheme (you're welcome).
But let's all freak out at the £50 a week that we give to asylum seekers instead.
this number was based on the initial figures being housed in Rwanda, what is overlooked is the idea was to ramp up to thousands which would then have been a huge saving in 2 areas. Firstly the numbers expecting to arrive dropping significantly as the scheme was seen as a deterrent, and secondly on housing, welfare and social cohesion.
The deterrent was seen to be realistic as numbers crossing dropped when the first flight was scheduled to leave, even though it was blocked from leaving. "
I think I recall that at the time, in the lead up to this original scheme many asylum seekers stopped claiming asylum in the UK and instead travelled to southern Ireland to claim there. This in turn caused complaints from them for the large increase. I'm not familiar with this EU scheme and at present would not expect it to be exactly the same as the old UK scheme but if they have success with it then doesn't look good for Starmers decision. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"£2 million per person is from the Overseas Development Institute, which has 60 years of experience on this stuff."
They got that number by taking the £700m cost of setting up the scheme, and then dividing it by the 300 people expected to be sent in the initial trial. Using their logic it would have been ruinously expensive for the first group, and then free for every subsequent one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"£2 million per person is from the Overseas Development Institute, which has 60 years of experience on this stuff.
They got that number by taking the £700m cost of setting up the scheme, and then dividing it by the 300 people expected to be sent in the initial trial. Using their logic it would have been ruinously expensive for the first group, and then free for every subsequent one. "
Yeah. I remember some news article making ridiculous calculations taking the one time expense and dividing it by the number of first few people sent and so many people criticising others for swallowing fake news lap that up immediately and share everywhere. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"£2 million per person is from the Overseas Development Institute, which has 60 years of experience on this stuff.
They got that number by taking the £700m cost of setting up the scheme, and then dividing it by the 300 people expected to be sent in the initial trial. Using their logic it would have been ruinously expensive for the first group, and then free for every subsequent one. "
How could it ever be "free for every subsequent one" when the deal with Rwanda was aleays per-person? Nice try though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 5 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"£2 million per person is from the Overseas Development Institute, which has 60 years of experience on this stuff.
They got that number by taking the £700m cost of setting up the scheme, and then dividing it by the 300 people expected to be sent in the initial trial. Using their logic it would have been ruinously expensive for the first group, and then free for every subsequent one.
How could it ever be "free for every subsequent one" when the deal with Rwanda was aleays per-person? Nice try though."
The amount being paid was for a deal over a number of years covering thousands of people, potentially. However the first tranche of people was specifically low to test the scheme, critics used that number against the overall cost giving a false costing.
Rwanda and the Uk were taking a punt on the scheme drying up arrival numbers, that meant Rwanda took a lot of money for not many people, and the UK reduced the entrants, whcih was seen as a win win. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
They could stop them tomorrow for free without any elaborate scheme by simply removing the reason they come here (housing and dole money if it already obvious ha) the thing is they actually have to want to stop it which they don’t they just use stupid shitty costly schemes as a distraction to try and make it look to the public that they are trying. As long as Starmer is in charge absolutely nothing will be done to even hinder them considering he was the one that fought and won the court case to grant them access to benefits back in 2003. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"£700 million for three people doesn't seem like much of a win win"
Yvette Cooper said the Rwanda scheme including potential future costs and planned spending, was projected to exceed £10 billion at the time Starmer cancelled it.
Labour then said they’d recruit 1000 extra home office case workers to cost a similar amount, followed by the one in, one out policy which has also failed.
There’s also the £500m Sunak agreed to pay France. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"They could stop them tomorrow for free without any elaborate scheme by simply removing the reason they come here (housing and dole money if it already obvious ha) the thing is they actually have to want to stop it which they don’t they just use stupid shitty costly schemes as a distraction to try and make it look to the public that they are trying. As long as Starmer is in charge absolutely nothing will be done to even hinder them considering he was the one that fought and won the court case to grant them access to benefits back in 2003. "
They will never cease to be attracted by the fact that we speak the only useful language in the world.
By some we are also seen as a stepping stone to the USA, their ultimate dream destination. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 5 weeks ago
|
"£700 million for three people doesn't seem like much of a win win"
It has been explained in detail by several posters that your argument is based on false data and presumptions so I don't see what is gained by repeating these. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"£700 million for three people doesn't seem like much of a win win"
"It has been explained in detail by several posters that your argument is based on false data and presumptions so I don't see what is gained by repeating these."
What they gain is peace of mind.
They hate the Tories because "they're evil and incompetent, the Rwanda Scheme proves it". If they had to admit that their figures on Rwanda aren't correct, that would mean that the Tories aren't as bad as they seemed. And if the Rwanda figures are wrong, how many other 'facts' about the Tories are also wrong?
Much easier to keep repeating it and not have to trouble themselves with confronting their own bias. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 5 weeks ago
|
"£700 million for three people doesn't seem like much of a win win
It has been explained in detail by several posters that your argument is based on false data and presumptions so I don't see what is gained by repeating these.
What they gain is peace of mind.
They hate the Tories because "they're evil and incompetent, the Rwanda Scheme proves it". If they had to admit that their figures on Rwanda aren't correct, that would mean that the Tories aren't as bad as they seemed. And if the Rwanda figures are wrong, how many other 'facts' about the Tories are also wrong?
Much easier to keep repeating it and not have to trouble themselves with confronting their own bias."
The Rwanda scheme was an innovative project which I'm sure other countries will learn from. It also had to overcome various legal challenges which added to delays and costs. But it was a possible solution to the difficult problem of illegal migration which Labour should at least kept on the table as an option to be further explored. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"£700 million for three people doesn't seem like much of a win win
It has been explained in detail by several posters that your argument is based on false data and presumptions so I don't see what is gained by repeating these.
What they gain is peace of mind.
They hate the Tories because "they're evil and incompetent, the Rwanda Scheme proves it". If they had to admit that their figures on Rwanda aren't correct, that would mean that the Tories aren't as bad as they seemed. And if the Rwanda figures are wrong, how many other 'facts' about the Tories are also wrong?
Much easier to keep repeating it and not have to trouble themselves with confronting their own bias."
Pretty much like the "Brexit is the reason why boat crossings went up" lie many people like repeating. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 5 weeks ago
|
"£700 million for three people doesn't seem like much of a win win
It has been explained in detail by several posters that your argument is based on false data and presumptions so I don't see what is gained by repeating these.
What they gain is peace of mind.
They hate the Tories because "they're evil and incompetent, the Rwanda Scheme proves it". If they had to admit that their figures on Rwanda aren't correct, that would mean that the Tories aren't as bad as they seemed. And if the Rwanda figures are wrong, how many other 'facts' about the Tories are also wrong?
Much easier to keep repeating it and not have to trouble themselves with confronting their own bias.
Pretty much like the "Brexit is the reason why boat crossings went up" lie many people like repeating."
Did you see Starmer used it the other day ! 🤦♂️ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"£700 million for three people doesn't seem like much of a win win
It has been explained in detail by several posters that your argument is based on false data and presumptions so I don't see what is gained by repeating these."
Did it cost £700 million? Yes or No?
Were there more than three people removed? Yes or No?
That's the hard data you are struggling with. All the rest is just wishful thinking on your part. Your Starmer Derangement Syndrome seems to prevent you from seeing what's in front of your nose
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 5 weeks ago
|
"£700 million for three people doesn't seem like much of a win win
It has been explained in detail by several posters that your argument is based on false data and presumptions so I don't see what is gained by repeating these.
Did it cost £700 million? Yes or No?
Were there more than three people removed? Yes or No?
That's the hard data you are struggling with. All the rest is just wishful thinking on your part. Your Starmer Derangement Syndrome seems to prevent you from seeing what's in front of your nose
"
I think you have been sufficiently schooled in this thread; I don't want to add to the embarrassment. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 5 weeks ago
Terra Firma |
"Facts don't care about your feelings."
The labour government threw the scheme in the bin and with it all the money you say was wasted.
There was an opportunity to fine tune elements of the scheme rather than lose the progress made through the courts, but an expensive symbolic gesture was more important to the incoming government than the mood of the nation. The same can be said for the resident doctors 30%+ pay rises and a big hug for the BMA, which is now coming back to haunt them.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"£700 million for three people doesn't seem like much of a win win
It has been explained in detail by several posters that your argument is based on false data and presumptions so I don't see what is gained by repeating these.
What they gain is peace of mind.
They hate the Tories because "they're evil and incompetent, the Rwanda Scheme proves it". If they had to admit that their figures on Rwanda aren't correct, that would mean that the Tories aren't as bad as they seemed. And if the Rwanda figures are wrong, how many other 'facts' about the Tories are also wrong?
Much easier to keep repeating it and not have to trouble themselves with confronting their own bias.
Pretty much like the "Brexit is the reason why boat crossings went up" lie many people like repeating.
Did you see Starmer used it the other day ! 🤦♂️"
Lies like these work with the far left who can't check the facts. So Starmer and co will keep using these lies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"£700 million for three people doesn't seem like much of a win win
It has been explained in detail by several posters that your argument is based on false data and presumptions so I don't see what is gained by repeating these.
What they gain is peace of mind.
They hate the Tories because "they're evil and incompetent, the Rwanda Scheme proves it". If they had to admit that their figures on Rwanda aren't correct, that would mean that the Tories aren't as bad as they seemed. And if the Rwanda figures are wrong, how many other 'facts' about the Tories are also wrong?
Much easier to keep repeating it and not have to trouble themselves with confronting their own bias.
Pretty much like the "Brexit is the reason why boat crossings went up" lie many people like repeating.
Did you see Starmer used it the other day ! 🤦♂️
Lies like these work with the far left who can't check the facts. So Starmer and co will keep using these lies."
He kind of has to keep that going to divert attention away from himself |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A coalition of EU countries are planning to establish migrant processing centres in Africa.
A similar scheme was of course being set up by the last Conservative Govt but was then scrapped at huge wasted cost by Sir Kier Starmer.
With Labour's enthusiasm for all things EU will this mean the Rwanda scheme is revived, or will it mean yet more asylum seekers taking day trips from Calais to avoid this inhumane treatment?"
Britain never proposed a processing scheme off shore.
Britain proposed to illegally remove people from one country to another
Very different
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"£700 million for three people doesn't seem like much of a win win
It has been explained in detail by several posters that your argument is based on false data and presumptions so I don't see what is gained by repeating these.
What they gain is peace of mind.
They hate the Tories because "they're evil and incompetent, the Rwanda Scheme proves it". If they had to admit that their figures on Rwanda aren't correct, that would mean that the Tories aren't as bad as they seemed. And if the Rwanda figures are wrong, how many other 'facts' about the Tories are also wrong?
Much easier to keep repeating it and not have to trouble themselves with confronting their own bias.
Pretty much like the "Brexit is the reason why boat crossings went up" lie many people like repeating.
Did you see Starmer used it the other day ! 🤦♂️
Lies like these work with the far left who can't check the facts. So Starmer and co will keep using these lies."
No, studies do show. That we have become a second country that failed asylum seekers travel to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
