Bibby Bargain Barge?

[Roy Bloom]

There is nothing wrong with article 19.

In your opinion.

I agree, it's enforcable by either party.
Because the Article doesn't specify how many, how often, how vulnerable etc doesn't matter, it's enforcable.

UK can't claim it shouldn't have been included for any reason, They read the treaty and they signed it. They can't claim later that they thought it was too vague to be enforcable. The conciliation court would laugh at them.

 

[Munroast]

virtually all the people arriving in the U.K. by illegal means come from France.
and you think the solution is not to talk to France.

Do you realise the migrant crisis is an international crisis and therefore the solution has to be international collaboration.


Do you realise stamping your feet and screaming “I don’t want any of them coming here” is not a solution whatsoever

yes we should all get together in Europe and stop them entering - and I think that is what will eventually happen

 

[carmanmemoranda]

yes we should all get together in Europe and stop them entering - and I think that is what will eventually happen

Wouldn't it be better if we had a proper seat and proper power. But too late for that

 

[denso13]

yes we should all get together in Europe and stop them entering

Unworkable. We need agreed methods of dealing with immigration, saying go away isn't feasible.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Unworkable. We need agreed methods of dealing with immigration, saying go away isn't feasible.

If we keep saying go away often enough it becomes true

 

[motorbiking]

[/QUOTE]

I agree, it's enforcable by either party.
Because the Article doesn't specify how many, how often, how vulnerable etc doesn't matter, it's enforcable.

UK can't claim it shouldn't have been included for any reason, They read the treaty and they signed it. They can't claim later that they thought it was too vague to be enforcable. The conciliation court would laugh at them.

As a reminder you argued this:

Rwanda gets to choose who is returned.

Which isn't what Article 19 says.

Article 19: Resettlement of vulnerable refugees
The Parties shall make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Parties’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.

I think you've gone full swerve, hop, skipping about to understand this now.

Well done Jim.

If you want to check your understanding of a contractual clause, the best way is to ask yourself questions and see if the contract answers them.
e.g.
who gets to choose who is returned - the parties must agree under article 19, or the UK decides under Article 11
who defines how much a portion is - a hand is a portion, but I think it doesn't mean body parts, rather a subset of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees. which is what I said.
Rwanda decided who are the refugees, but not which are most vulnerable and making arrangements to relocate just one, is full compliance with Article 19,
who defines when they must be relocated to the UK - the parties
who defines the criteria for a most vulnerable - the parties.

So we now know that

Rwanda gets to choose who is returned.

Is more Boll@x from you.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

You can read this bit as much as you like.

"The Parties shall make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom"

It means they come to the UK, no matter who selects or agrees. You might think it might just be 1 person. I doubt it will be just 1 though.

That section gives them the power to negotiate what they want, against what we want.

It is not a magic wand

 

[motorbiking]

how much is a portion?

Why would anyone object to a portion of the most vulnerable refugees being sent to the UK. The whole policy is to stop illegal immigrants and people traffickers, not a portion of genuine vulnerable refugees

 

[motorbiking]

That section gives them the power to negotiate what they want, against what we want.

Yes it a good faith clause or an agreement to make an agreement etc. All things that have been said already.

It means they come to the UK, no matter who selects or agrees. You might think it might just be 1 person. I doubt it will be just 1 though.

I haven't said it will be one, I've said it could be one and the article is complied with.

We know who selects and agrees - the parties, not Rwanda unilaterally, contrary to what Jim argued.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Yes it a good faith clause or an agreement to make an agreement etc. All things that have been said already.

So Rwanda will be able to choose who to send here

 

[motorbiking]

No

 

[carmanmemoranda]

No

I suggest you read it again then, and think about how negotiations work.

When we tell them what we want, what do you think there reply will be? "Yes of course, carry on, we don't want anything in return "

Can you imagine what a good lawyer could do with that clause?

 

[Roy Bloom]

Article 19: Resettlement of vulnerable refugees
The Parties shall make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Parties’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.

We know what it says.
In practice, will the UK choose to resettle any refugees in UK, from Rwanda?
Of course they won't.

Will Rwanda choose to resettle some refugees in UK?
Of course they will.

There's already an agreement for UK to take some of Rwanda's asylum seekers, and any UK asylum seekers that Rwanda decides are criminals.

In addition the Monitoring Committee (Article 15) will comprise of non-partisan people. They will have the Rwanda records at their disposal. Rwanda will have been responsible for maintaining those records.

Even if UK wanted to resettle some vulnerable regugees, how could they determine they were vulnerable? They're in Rwanda.
Therefore by a series of deductions, in practice, Rwanda determines who, when, why and how many are resettled in UK.

Sure there can be some disagreements, and at the end of the day, Rwanda holds all the cards, despite the Joint Committe (Article 16) trying to conciliate an agreed dispute.
They've taken the money, and if the treaty falls apart, UK will need to think how it will accommodate all those refugees shipped to Rwanda, because the treaty has no 'wind-up' 'break down' clause, other than a Joint Committee of each party's representatives.
If the treaty falls apart Rwanda has no responsibility for un-processed refugees.

 

[Roy Bloom]

how much is a portion?

How long is a piece of string?

Why would anyone object to a portion of the most vulnerable refugees being sent to the UK. The whole policy is to stop illegal immigrants and people traffickers, not a portion of genuine vulnerable refugees

Of course. No-one is arguing that Article 19 is inhumane, humane or any other moral judgement.
The argument is that the Treaty will not achieve what the government hopes it will.
The asylum seekers will still come. Very few, if any, will end up in Rwanda. There could be many returned, plus some of Rwandas own asylum seekers.
So what's the point?
The money could have been put to far better use in UK.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Yes it a good faith clause or an agreement to make an agreement etc. All things that have been said already.

Article 19 is not a good faith clause.
If it was, all the other clauses could be similarly described.

I haven't said it will be one, I've said it could be one and the article is complied with.

It could be as many as Rwanda want it to be.

We know who selects and agrees - the parties, not Rwanda unilaterally, contrary to what Jim argued.

Each party is an equal party. Rwanda creates and maintains the records.
If there is a dispute the non-prtisan Monitoring Committee will decide, from Rwanda's records.

If the dispute gets as far as the Joint Committee the treaty has nore or less fallen apart.
And UK has spent a lot of money for nowt.