Bibby Bargain Barge?

Apparently Blair looked at or considered locating migrants on the Isle of Mull (?)

Several third countries were also considered
South Africa
Kenya

A new law was also considered that would circum navigate the ECHR ??
 
transam said:
Apparently Blair looked at or considered locating migrants on the Isle of Mull (?)

Several third countries were also considered
South Africa
Kenya

A new law was also considered that would circum navigate the ECHR ??
Click to expand...
I suggest you reread your media sources.
You think you've read it and understood it, but your comments prove otherwise:
A detention camp on the Isle of Mull and breaking international law were among measures on migration presented to Tony Blair while prime minister, according to newly released files.
Click to expand...
www.bbc.com

Tony Blair urged 'radical' measures to cut asylum, archive papers reveal

Proposals put to the former PM included a detention camp on Mull, newly-released files from 2003 show.
www.bbc.com

The specific misunderstandings on your part are that:
a. there is no suggestion that it was seriously considered by Blair or his government. It was suggestions put to him/them.
b. It wouldn't circumnavigate international law, it would break it.
c. the current government is suggesting sending all arrivals to rwanda, but the suggestion put to Blair was only to send failed asylum seekers elsewhere.
d. the Isle of Mull was merely temporary accomodation for asylum applicants pending the outcome of their application.

And 5 years earlier Blair had extended the rights enshrined in the ECHR to cover UK.
 
motorbiking said:
Why would there be? The agreement comes to an end, the partnership ceases.
Click to expand...
The wind-up clause is:
Either party can end the agreement with simple three months notice.
That's it.
If there is an unresolved dispute, Rwanda can simply walk away with the money.
Any un-processed or vulnerable refugees will need to be returned to UK.
The treaty is so fragile it's unbelievable. It's just a gimmick. A gimmick that has cost £millions and wated immense amount of time, so far, and achieved nothing.

Rwanda holds all the cards. And Uk is absolutely desparate to show something, anything, for the wasted time and money.
As I said, the only motivation for Rwanda to continue the agreement in any unresolved dispute is with the hope of having more countries agreement, and their money.

Howver, it's all academic, it's still in the design stage, it's hasn't left the factory yet, never mind reached the launch pad, and taking off is a distant dream. :rolleyes:
If the UK scheme fails to materialise other countries will ditch any considerations for their own schemes. And the UK government will have wasted vast amounts of time and money on another silly gimmick.
 
motorbiking said:
I think you need to sit down and make yourself a cup of tea Jim, you seem very confused with all this hop, skipping about.



Why would there be? The agreement comes to an end, the partnership ceases.
Click to expand...
You can't see any places for legal experts to punch holes in it. Fair enough
 
Roy Bloom said:
The wind-up clause is:
Either party can end the agreement with simple three months notice.
That's it.
Click to expand...
Its a partnership than either party can bring to an end - sounds perfectively reasonable.

Roy Bloom said:
Any un-processed or vulnerable refugees will need to be returned to UK.
Click to expand...
You conclude this how?
Remember the returns clause in Article 11, is unilateral - only the UK can request people are returned.
Article 19 specifically states a portion and once the agreement is terminated, the obligation ceases.

The people stay where they are, as does the money. of course the people are free to leave.
 
I've said many times - I think there are better ways to discourage people from coming to the UK illegally. I've also said the revised bill will get stuck in the Lords, because there is no will to push it through or convention (e.g. Salisbury) to force it through on a fast track.

I think its chances are 50/50 at best. But that doesn't mean I am going to pretend it says things it doesn't or accept the opinions of people who either haven't read it or don't understand it.

carmanmemoranda said:
I will see what happens in time, when the legal experts get involved.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting those who created the treaty aren't legal experts?
 
Last edited:
motorbiking said:
I've said many times - I think there are better ways to discourage people from coming to the UK illegally.
Click to expand...
It's not illegal to seek asylum.
It's only UK domestic law to arrive without permission.
Any attempt to relocate so-called 'illegals' is still to be tested in UK and then international courts.

Edited:
motorbiking said:
I've also said the revised bill will get stuck in the Lords, because there is no will to push it through or convention (e.g. Salisbury) to force it through on a fast track.
I think its chances are 50/50 at best.
Click to expand...
Other, more experienced, give it lower odds.
So it's a gimmick, a very, very expensive, time wasting gimmick doomed for failure. :rolleyes:

motorbiking said:
But that doesn't mean I am going to pretend it says things it doesn't or accept the opinions of people who either haven't read it or don't understand it.
Click to expand...
You're welcome to your opinion.
You've claimed many things in the treaty that either do not exist, or you've minterpreted them. You have a history of misinterpreting the law to suit your prejudices.
 
Last edited:
If you come to the UK illegally - your asylum claim is inadmissible in the UK. There is no international law or convention that dictates the rules a country applies to determine the admissibility of a claim, that is left to the state. Since you enter the UK illegally and have no lawful excuse, you are an illegal immigrant.
 
motorbiking said:
Since you enter the UK illegally and have no lawful excuse, you are an illegal immigrant.
Click to expand...
Which is, in the eyes of some, inhumane.

In the eyes of others it doesn't matter where they go, or what happens to them. As long as they are not our concern, who cares.
 
motorbiking said:
Its a partnership than either party can bring to an end - sounds perfectively reasonable.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Rwanda can bring it to an end easily and quickly in the case of unresolved disputes. It has little to lose.
UK has a lot to lose if the agrement is brought to a premature end.

motorbiking said:
You conclude this how?
Remember the returns clause in Article 11, is unilateral - only the UK can request people are returned.
Click to expand...
Total nonsense. Article 11 states that UK may request the return of individuals. It absolutely does not say that only UK can request the return of individuals. Because elswhere it discusses the return of vulnerable individuals and criminal individuals. So Rwanda has that discretion to decide who, why, when and how many are scheduled for return.
The intention of Article 11 is to place demands on Rwanda to accede to the UK request and comply with it.

motorbiking said:
Article 19 specifically states a portion and once the agreement is terminated, the obligation ceases.
Click to expand...
Article 19 places an obligation on UK to accept the refugees that Rwanda consider to be vulnerable. The actual number is not discussed.
As long as it is below another number (as yet undecided number) it is a 'portion'. A portion of what, we don't know and the Treaty does not specify.

motorbiking said:
The people stay where they are, as does the money. of course the people are free to leave.
Click to expand...
Un-processed refugee sent to Rwanda would need to be returned if the Treaty ceases. That is obvious and would be judged reasonable in any conciliation or legal proceedings, because any obligation on Rwanda to process them would cease.
Whereas vulnerable refugees already returned, or sent, to UK would remain where they are, in UK.
And yes, Rwanda gets to keep the money, and any scheduled payments.
 
motorbiking said:
If you come to the UK illegally - your asylum claim is inadmissible in the UK. There is no international law or convention that dictates the rules a country applies to determine the admissibility of a claim, that is left to the state. Since you enter the UK illegally and have no lawful excuse, you are an illegal immigrant.
Click to expand...
Domestic law does not override treaties. If UK is a signatory to European or UN Treaties, Agreements or Conventions, those European and UN agreements take precedence.
Domestic law is subservient.
UK can exit such international agreements, but it can't ignore them while being a 'member' of such agreements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top