Bibby Bargain Barge?

[Roy Bloom]

So Rwanda will be able to choose who to send here

No

Rwanda creates and maintains the records that determine who, how many, why and when a refugee is a vulnerable person.
If the parties cannot agree the non-partisan Mointoring Committe decide, from Rwanda's records.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Rwanda creates and maintains the records that determine who, how many, why and when a refugee is a vulnerable person.
If the parties cannot agree the non-partisan Mointoring Committe decide, from Rwanda's records.

It just needs a good lawyer and it's wide open

 

[Roy Bloom]

It just needs a good lawyer and it's wide open

So far trhe only ones sent to Rwanda have been three Home Office ministers..
Unfortunately Rwanda sent them back.

The discussion is all academic anyway, beacuse the Bill will either fail in Parliament, or in the courts.

 

[motorbiking]

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?

What negotiations? This isn't Brexit, Rwanda wants the deal, because they are getting paid to deal with the UK's problems. It's a good deal for them. In fact a stunning deal so far.

Article 19 has one purpose, close off any loophole that the "most vulnerable refugees" are subject to abuse at the hands of Rwanda, or the UK via the agreement. It reinforces the parties commitment to refugees. In the event that the "most vulnerable refugees" are suffering in Rwanda, well the UK and Rwanda have agreed "to make arrangements to resettle them in the UK".

 

[motorbiking]

Rwanda creates and maintains the records that determine who, how many, why and when a refugee is a vulnerable person.
If the parties cannot agree the non-partisan Mointoring Committe decide, from Rwanda's records.

So you didn't read Clause 2b of Article 16 then.

Or would you like me to explain what "Non-binding" means?

 

[Roy Bloom]

What negotiations? This isn't Brexit,

What? No negotiations prior to striking a Treaty with another country?

Rwanda wants the deal, because they are getting paid to deal with the UK's problems. It's a good deal for them. In fact a stunning deal so far.

Agreed with no benefits adverse publicity so far for UK.

Article 19 has one purpose, close off any loophole that the "most vulnerable refugees" are subject to abuse at the hands of Rwanda, or the UK via the agreement. It reinforces the parties commitment to refugees. In the event that the "most vulnerable refugees" are suffering in Rwanda, well the UK and Rwanda have agreed "to make arrangements to resettle them in the UK".

Except Rwanda gets to decide how many, when, why and who.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

What negotiations? This isn't Brexit, Rwanda wants the deal, because they are getting paid to deal with the UK's problems. It's a good deal for them. In fact a stunning deal so far.

Article 19 has one purpose, close off any loophole that the "most vulnerable refugees" are subject to abuse at the hands of Rwanda, or the UK via the agreement. It reinforces the parties commitment to refugees. In the event that the "most vulnerable refugees" are suffering in Rwanda, well the UK and Rwanda have agreed "to make arrangements to resettle them in the UK".

It's a treaty.

Article 19 allows for .. ?


1 way, or negotiated.

A GOOD lawyer will work wonders with it

 

[Roy Bloom]

Rwanda creates and maintains the records that determine who, how many, why and when a refugee is a vulnerable person.
If the parties cannot agree the non-partisan Mointoring Committe decide, from Rwanda's records.

So you didn't read Clause 2b of Article 16 then.
Or would you like me to explain what "Non-binding" means?

ARTICLE 16
Joint Committee
1. A Joint Committee composed of the representatives of both Parties shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement (including any renewal) and shall be co-chaired by a representative of each Party of appropriate seniority. 2. The role of the Joint Committee shall be to:
a. monitor and review the application and implementation of this Agreement and to make non-binding recommendations in respect thereof; and
b. provide a forum for the Parties to exchange information, discuss best practice including relevant guidance from external stake holders, and resolve issues of a technical or administrative character.

Article 16 is irrelevant in deciding who, when, how many or why refugees are resetteled to UK. That would be the work of the Monitoring Committee.
Did you not read Article 15?
Along with Article 14:
ARTICLE 14
Access for inspection and monitoring
1. The Joint Committee shall ensure that the Monitoring Committee has unfettered access to the following for the purposes of completing their assessments and reports:

 

[motorbiking]

Nope - the Parties decide and if they can't agree, Article 22 kicks in, which basically provides a time line for dispute escalation from committee, top politicians and then ultimately to Arbitrator. At no point does anything say:

.

Rwanda gets to decide how many, when, why and who.

If that had been the intention Article 19 would have been worded differently.

It's a treaty.

Article 19 allows for .. ?


1 way, or negotiated.

A GOOD lawyer will work wonders with it

If only there were two GOOD lawyers in the world, one who could represent either side. Read Article 22 - it sounds like we might need a 3rd.

 

[motorbiking]

Article 16 is irrelevant in deciding who, when, how many or why refugees are resetteled to UK. That would be the work of the Monitoring Committee.
Did you not read Article 15?

what powers does Article 15 provide....none apart from make recommendations and with the agreement of the joint committee change the ToR. Who has oversight of them.. oh that will be the Joint committee, what powers do they have other than to supervise the monitoring committee. - first level dispute resolution.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Nope - the Parties decide and if they can't agree, Article 22 kicks in, which basically provides a time line for dispute escalation from committee, top politicians and then ultimately to Arbitrator.

And if the treaty falls apart there's no wind-up clause.
Rwanda keeps the cash and any unprocessed asylum seekers are returned.
The only motivation for Rwnada to keep to the treaty is the hope they can strike more deals with other countries. Bu that seriosuly increases the risk of something going wrong. then all hell breaks loose. UK will be villified.

If that had been the intention Article 19 would have been worded differently.

That is the result in practice. Rwanda gets to decide who, when, why and how many.

If only there were two GOOD lawyers in the world, one who could represent either side. Read Article 22 - it sounds like we might need a 3rd.

We've already dealt with that
The Joint Committee has no teeth, other than the treaty falling apart.
There is no wind-up clause.

 

[Roy Bloom]

what powers does Article 15 provide....none apart from make recommendations and with the agreement of the joint committee change the ToR. Who has oversight of them.. oh that will be the Joint committee, what powers do they have other than to supervise the monitoring committee. - first level dispute resolution.

The monitoring committe will be the dispute process for asylum seekers that Rwanda want to return to UK, against the wishes of UK.
The Monitoring committe are non-partisan, and they will work on the records created and maintained by Rwanda.
I'm sure I don't need to remind you where Rwanda are on the international corruption scale.

 

[motorbiking]

Much higher (less corrupt) than many other safe 3rd countries. Or were you assuming they were more corrupt because they are mostly a black nation?

The whole thing is designed to be a giant game of snakes and ladders. Pay traffickers to get you up the board via the ladders, reach the UK, land on the snake and end up further away than when you started. You are of course free to leave at any point.

There is no wind-up clause.

see Article 23: Duration, effect and termination

 

[carmanmemoranda]

If only there were two GOOD lawyers in the world, one who could represent either side. Read Article 22 - it sounds like we might need a 3rd.

So you agree it could yet be wide open.

Not as simple as it looks is it

 

[Roy Bloom]

Much higher (less corrupt) than many other safe 3rd countries. Or were you assuming they were more corrupt because they are mostly a black nation?

Demonstrate your stupidity if you insist, but don't try to drag me into it.
I have previously posted the corruption scale of Rwanda.

The whole thing is designed to be a giant game of snakes and ladders. Pay traffickers to get you up the board via the ladders, reach the UK, land on the snake and end up further away than when you started. You are of course free to leave at any point.

With so few players affected no-one will be bothered.

see Article 23: Duration, effect and termination

This is the wind-up clause:

Each Party may terminate this Agreement by giving notice to the other Party in writing. The termination shall take effect 3 (three) months from the date of notificationto that other Party

This can be implemented by either party as and when they wish. If Rwanda are disgruntled with the operation of the treaty, they can simply terminate it.
There's no other mention of money already paid, nor of any unprocessed refugees.