-
They know that they can't actually "stop the boats" but they've got too tied up in that to admit it.
So, they need to find a scapegoat for why they can't do it and the Rwanda plan which will never come into force due to lefty lawyers is perfect for explaining their failure.
-
Listening to a few different commentators yesterday I thought the following were interesting points:
- The plan was conceived as part of "operation save big dog" - ie it's roots are in capturing the news cycle
- The government have known all along that they could have improved the strength of their case by signing a treaty with Rwanda with enough teeth to hold them to account for deficiencies in their asylum system. They chose not to do this and have lost (probably) as a result.
It's almost like it's a joke that's got out of hand.
Basically though, I think it's been kept live by 3 different camps:
- those who want it for performative effect
- those who see it as a strategic move to exit the ECHR
- those who are so fucking basic they thing it's a credible plan were they only allowed to do it
- The plan was conceived as part of "operation save big dog" - ie it's roots are in capturing the news cycle
-
Probably because they love the cruelties administered by the Australian government so much. Some inhumane "offshore solution" to "stop the boats" is right from that play book. Never mind the financial and human cost.
-
It is we will change the laws, and ignore the European court of human rights that worries me.
You are reading a single comment by @Light_EDDed and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
aggi
hugo7
pascalo
lynx
@Light_EDDed
This whole Rwanda situation is just getting more and more absurd. Why can’t the government just accept is a horrific plan and benefits no one. It must be costing a fortune.
But no even after it was ruled unlawful. They’re still going for it.
🫶🏻 cunts gonna cunt.