LIKE Boris Johnson’s sudden surprise trip to Ukraine, the government now plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda in a blatant attempt at deflection in order to save Johnson’s skin.
Partygate has come back with a vengeance and with more uncomfortable times in the offing for a re-embattled Johnson, more fixed penalty fines by the Met have been predicted and also the publication of the full Sue Gray report.
The plan is that, in an agreement brokered between the Home Secretary Priti Patel and the Rwandan government, asylum seekers will be flown 4000 miles to Rwanda.The cost of this hare-brained scheme will be paid by the already hard-pressed British taxpayer. As yet, government ministers have been coy about detailing the exact cost of the programme.
READ MORE: Jacob Rees-Mogg hits back at archbishop over Rwanda scheme
The move has already been described as “cruel and nasty” by the Refugee Council, “unworkable, unethical and extortionate” by shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper and “evil” by Ian Blackford.
A surprising fact in this impending fiasco to save Boris Johnson’s job is that 10 months ago, Britain condemned Rwanda for neglecting to investigate human rights violations! A statement by the UK’s international advisor for human rights Rita French raised her concern and “regret that Rwanda was not conducting “transparent, credible and independent investigations into allegations of human rights violations including deaths in custody and torture.”
By no stretch of the imagination can it be assumed that the UK Government is sending asylum seekers to a safe country and to a secure future.
Yet again the Conservative party are proving themselves to be “the nasty party”.
Sandy Gordon
Edinburgh
I WRITE in some anger; in fact boiling with rage over the cruel plan of Johnson and Patel to arrest asylum seekers (including those risking everything by crossing the English Channel in leaky boats) and to send them 4000 miles away to Rwanda. This is, in fact, a form of government-sponsored people-trafficking and the scheme’s wickedness is compounded by the poor human rights record of Rwanda. It is probably also in breach of international law on the treatment of asylum seekers. Patel even had the gall to have herself use the signing of the agreement as a photographic opportunity! I trust that this cannot make it to the statute book.
Andrew McCrae
Gourock
WHAT would be the legal situation of any pilot asked to take a plane load of migrants to Rwanda? Would he/she be complicit in people trafficking? Would all passengers on such flights be chemically subdued to prevent any understandable reaction? This is what happens when Priti Patel is in charge of humanity. Not in my name. Is not Easter the right time for decency to prevail?
M Ross
Aviemore
READ MORE: Boris Johnson's Rwanda plan condemned by Archbishop of Canterbury
AM I wrong to believe that no immigrant is illegal under the international laws and conventions, to which the UK is signatory, unless and until their application for asylum has been processed and refused? If this is the case, why is the use of this false designation not more widely and regularly highlighted and criticised?
Moreover, if Priti Patel intends this outsourcing of our international obligations to apply to more than one generation, as in the case of the Windrush families, might it affect her own family?
L McGregor
Falkirk
SO, a person comes to the UK to claim asylum brought here by criminal people traffickers. The criminal and unionist party will traffic those people to a country in Africa they did not want to go to – so to combat people traffickers the UK is proposing becoming people traffickers! The criminal and unionist party at its worst.
Rab Doig
via email
HAS anyone noticed the similarity between what I hope is the abortive attempts to send the refugees they hate to an African country, Rwanda, by the Conservatives an the abortive plan of the Nazis to send the people they hated to the African country of Madagascar? Just saying.
David Rowe
Beith
OVER the past week we have had members the cabinet and government back-benchers, plus the leader of the Scottish Conservative Party, explaining that the PM should not be forced to resign over attending parties at Downing Street on the grounds that (a) he believed they were work events, and (b) they happened two years ago and it is time to move on, (c) he and his staff were under great pressure and thus entitled to have refreshments, (d) the criticism is a plot by the opposition to destroy the career of a great man, (e) now is not the time to consider the issue, (f) it is all “fluff” and he should be allowed to get on with defeating Putin, (g) he has apologised and expressed sincere regret for any “inadvertent mistakes”.
READ MORE: Andrew Tickell: Machiavelli101: Why Douglas Ross’s error on Boris Johnson leaves him lost and alone
Leaving aside the apologies of the Boris Johnson, which are as genuine as a £9 note, I believe that these replies contain some very revealing truths about the policies of this government and the PM’s work ethic. The approach to Brexit – shipping contracts to a company with no ships, an “oven-ready deal” that proved to be a half-baked dog’s breakfast, ordering PPE from a finance company during the Covid pandemic, insisting that people fleeing war in Ukraine should have the proper paperwork to enter the UK, and sending desperate asylum seekers to Rwanda to apply for entry – are all clear signs of policies that were not produced by decent, humane people in a state of sobriety.
T J Dowds
Cumbernauld
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here