UK will finally off shore illegal asylum seekers crossing the channel

By the sounds of it though, Johnson is playing a long game. He won't try and remove the ECHR now, but instead will make it a manifesto pledge for the next general election. All he needs to do for the moment is keep things bubbling over, the ECHR continuing to intervene in deportations, the right wing press will remain fully on board with the Rwanda scheme etc. It might be that he has the idea of a snap general election in mind within the next 12 months.

Is the UK more attractive than France? I thought they were getting lower inwards migration than both Germany and France. I can see the language being in its favour, but beyond that, someone would want reasons other than the warm tory welcome to pick the place.

But the UK is 'not' more attractive than European countries - this is where the English tabloids are openly and deliberately lying to their readers.

Germany, France and Spain get far more asylum applications per year than the UK (Germany and France almost three times more). Which means the vast majority of asylum seekers who enter France choose not to travel on to the UK.

"10% of the national GDP seems rather large to me"

Well, you clearly don't know what you are talking then, because out of of 159 countries the UK has the 7th smallest shadow economy, which makes a nonsense of your claim that it would be "an (black) economy that migrants would be aware of through cultural/ethnic/national word of mouth"

https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/shadow_economy/

This is quite an amusing post considering the deficits of basic logic you have exhibited throughout this thread.

No matter how many nonsensical policies Johnson and Patel introduce, there will also be plenty of Tory toads on here claiming the policy is "sensible".

Doublethink doesn't even begin to describe it.

This concerns Ireland big time. Ilegal econmoic migrants are free to take the ferry from UK to Belfast, then enter into the republic with zero checks. I think its true to say we are all for legal migration processes to fill low skilled and high skilled jobs, but without security background checks, we dont know who is coming into the UK shores daily (and potentially ireland).

The Belfast route well known that this was a route many Nigeria's tookbefore claiming aslylum in the republic.

Though from what I can gather, none of the Rwanda refugees were being deported for security reasons. None had criminal records or had been investigated over security concerns. It's debatable whether refugees or asylum seekers pose any sort of a credible security risk to a country (actual terrorists probably have the money and resources to enter a country quite legally with documentation and have no need to arrive on board a dinghy).

It may well be that Johnson views it as another version of the Irish Protocol. Something that will drag on for months or years and featuring regular clashes with the ECHR. This may have been the original plan - "what sort of scheme can we introduce that will really rile people up and galvanise the base?". It's definitely eye catching and hugely controversial, which might have been its aim.

Really interesting topics for the Irish society. Well done.

Maybe the UK can first stop engaging in illegal wars that have messed up all those asylum seekers' countries.

By the way this is the first time I hear that an asylum seeker can be illegal because they are an asylum seeker.

Also you are being emotional about this topic in the title and post. Yes it should be resolved and yes it costs a fortune, but there is work and opportunities for everyone but goverments are running out of ideas and momentum.