[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  Northern variant [@FUDdaily](/creator/twitter/FUDdaily) on x 41.5K followers Created: 2025-07-23 16:03:52 UTC As far as I'm aware, the Rwanda principle was never really tested. I think it might have worked. The Safety of Rwanda Act struck out international law from any consideration, and disapplied sections two and three of the Human Rights Act. A civil service union attempted to challenge it, but couldn't have meaningfully stopped it. At most a government would simply have to ignore an ECtHR injunction. As such, the Tories aren't entirely wrong in saying the Rwanda plan was ready to go. It was still on sketchy territory in that Rwanda probably doesn't qualify as safe and it does fly in the face of convention - but I wouldn't lose any sleep over that. I might feel differently were we talking about European refugees and not third world illegal immigrants. Parliament passed the Safety of Rwanda Act and that should be all any government needs in order to proceed. There was, however, the small problem capacity. Only XXXXX asylum seekers were identified in the initial cohort to be sent to Rwanda, and there is next to zero chance Rwanda would ever take that many. For context, there were XXXXXX crossings last year according to Migration Watch. Though the Rwanda plan was useful in establishing offshore resettlement as a principle, it doesn't even begin to dent the overall number of bogus refugees. The scheme would need to be replicated many times over, between several countries. Good luck with that. To accomplish that, we're going to need trade and development agreements backed by substantial foreign aid as a deal sweetener. Moreover, supposing we left the ECHR and the respective non-refoulement conventions, and any other legal obstacles to deportation, we would still have much the same problems. Fixing the legal landscape provides no remedy for the practical considerations at this scale. For sure, we could establish a Falklands internment camp and an overspill facility somewhere on a remote Scottish island, but we're now talking about many tens of thousands - and indefinite detention, having to expand on an indefinite basis, looks like a non-starter to me. We are working on the presumption that indefinite detention and resettlement will serve as a deterrent - thereby stopping, or substantially reducing, the number of crossings. But I don't think it will. We are applying the motivational reasoning abilities of educated people to low IQ third worlder. They do not necessarily respond to disincentives and will attempt the crossing anyway. Since, in their eyes, they have nowhere else to be, they will try their luck regardless. Here, then, we get into direct deportations, looking at carrot and stick policies to get third countries to take back their garbage, but I still think that's going to be a slow and limited process. We need to look at maximal hostile environment and voluntary remigration measures. Voluntary remigration immediately sidesteps any legal issues, so there's that. Ultimately, think there is more to be gained from looking at remigration/hostile environment measures than fannying about trying to leave the ECHR. In this, to their credit, Labour have been doing some of the things I've outlined in terms of cracking down on Deliveroo and inspecting HMOs etc, but not at the necessary scale to make a discernible impact. Again we come back to the lack of seriousness and lack of political will. I rather get the feeling that talk of leaving the ECHR is displacement activity, looking for a single silver bullet with magical properties rather than doing the sustained and detailed work commensurate with solving a complex and multi-facted problems. As it happens, I do not think the ECHR is an insurmountable obstacle to deportations because any breach is not going to mobilise any foreign attempt to enforce international law, because most European countries are exploring similar options. Arguably the Windsor Framework does create an asylum backdoor, but I think Northern Ireland's residents will address that problem with more direct hostile environment approaches. The worst of the resistance will come from the blob in and around Westminster - which is problematic on every issue. We need a de-blobbing policy. Where the ECHR/HRA could become a nuisance, is in areas where we have yet to take any serious action. When it comes to taking on Islamic sectarianism, we're going to have to take extraordinary measures, but something tells me that by the time we come to dealing with those issues, we will be far beyond questions of legal compliance. We're probably then in emergency safeguards territory where we can choose to suspend articles of Human Rights. We'll cross the bridge when we come to it. For now, I'm more interested in the less politically expensive approaches to dealing with garbage immigration. XXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [rwanda](/topic/rwanda) [Post Link](https://x.com/FUDdaily/status/1948051447762886925)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
Northern variant @FUDdaily on x 41.5K followers
Created: 2025-07-23 16:03:52 UTC
As far as I'm aware, the Rwanda principle was never really tested. I think it might have worked. The Safety of Rwanda Act struck out international law from any consideration, and disapplied sections two and three of the Human Rights Act. A civil service union attempted to challenge it, but couldn't have meaningfully stopped it. At most a government would simply have to ignore an ECtHR injunction. As such, the Tories aren't entirely wrong in saying the Rwanda plan was ready to go.
It was still on sketchy territory in that Rwanda probably doesn't qualify as safe and it does fly in the face of convention - but I wouldn't lose any sleep over that. I might feel differently were we talking about European refugees and not third world illegal immigrants. Parliament passed the Safety of Rwanda Act and that should be all any government needs in order to proceed.
There was, however, the small problem capacity. Only XXXXX asylum seekers were identified in the initial cohort to be sent to Rwanda, and there is next to zero chance Rwanda would ever take that many. For context, there were XXXXXX crossings last year according to Migration Watch.
Though the Rwanda plan was useful in establishing offshore resettlement as a principle, it doesn't even begin to dent the overall number of bogus refugees. The scheme would need to be replicated many times over, between several countries. Good luck with that. To accomplish that, we're going to need trade and development agreements backed by substantial foreign aid as a deal sweetener.
Moreover, supposing we left the ECHR and the respective non-refoulement conventions, and any other legal obstacles to deportation, we would still have much the same problems. Fixing the legal landscape provides no remedy for the practical considerations at this scale. For sure, we could establish a Falklands internment camp and an overspill facility somewhere on a remote Scottish island, but we're now talking about many tens of thousands - and indefinite detention, having to expand on an indefinite basis, looks like a non-starter to me.
We are working on the presumption that indefinite detention and resettlement will serve as a deterrent - thereby stopping, or substantially reducing, the number of crossings. But I don't think it will. We are applying the motivational reasoning abilities of educated people to low IQ third worlder. They do not necessarily respond to disincentives and will attempt the crossing anyway. Since, in their eyes, they have nowhere else to be, they will try their luck regardless.
Here, then, we get into direct deportations, looking at carrot and stick policies to get third countries to take back their garbage, but I still think that's going to be a slow and limited process. We need to look at maximal hostile environment and voluntary remigration measures. Voluntary remigration immediately sidesteps any legal issues, so there's that. Ultimately, think there is more to be gained from looking at remigration/hostile environment measures than fannying about trying to leave the ECHR.
In this, to their credit, Labour have been doing some of the things I've outlined in terms of cracking down on Deliveroo and inspecting HMOs etc, but not at the necessary scale to make a discernible impact. Again we come back to the lack of seriousness and lack of political will. I rather get the feeling that talk of leaving the ECHR is displacement activity, looking for a single silver bullet with magical properties rather than doing the sustained and detailed work commensurate with solving a complex and multi-facted problems.
As it happens, I do not think the ECHR is an insurmountable obstacle to deportations because any breach is not going to mobilise any foreign attempt to enforce international law, because most European countries are exploring similar options. Arguably the Windsor Framework does create an asylum backdoor, but I think Northern Ireland's residents will address that problem with more direct hostile environment approaches. The worst of the resistance will come from the blob in and around Westminster - which is problematic on every issue. We need a de-blobbing policy.
Where the ECHR/HRA could become a nuisance, is in areas where we have yet to take any serious action. When it comes to taking on Islamic sectarianism, we're going to have to take extraordinary measures, but something tells me that by the time we come to dealing with those issues, we will be far beyond questions of legal compliance. We're probably then in emergency safeguards territory where we can choose to suspend articles of Human Rights. We'll cross the bridge when we come to it. For now, I'm more interested in the less politically expensive approaches to dealing with garbage immigration.
XXXXX engagements
Related Topics rwanda