Bibby Bargain Barge?

[Roy Bloom]

How can I know what you are referring to given that the treaty says no such thing.

You referred to my comment which followed Notch's:

So these people would have the status of being a refugee in Rwanda
Let’s say the Rwandan govt feel some of the refugees are ”most vulnerable”…..

Article 19: Resettlement of vulnerable refugees​

The Parties shall make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Parties’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.

Rwanda gets to choose who is returned.

Is that is what you have concluded from reading the treaty? I suggest you read it again.

Is your memory struggling?

Also, further to my earlier comment:

In addition, the failed asylum seeker can be returned to UK, with or without the UK's permission.
Section 11, states the Uk may make a request for a return.
It doesn't say anything about denying the return of a failed asylum seeker.

And in previous occasions Rwanda has a record of refusing 100% of applications.

 

[motorbiking]

Article 19 does not say Rwanda determines who and what proportion of vulnerable people can be returned.
Article 11 does not say Rwanda has the power to return failed asylum seekers.

Being free to leave, does not mean can be sent back. The power to request the return is unilateral (UK only). Rwanda must either grant asylum, grant a right to remain or allow them to leave.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Article 19 does not say Rwanda determines who and what proportion of vulnerable people can be returned.
Article 11 does not say Rwanda has the power to return failed asylum seekers.

They don't say that UK can refuse anyone neither.
It says that UK may request that someone is returned. It does not say they can refuse someone that Rwanda wants to return.

The power to request the return is unilateral (UK only).

It does not say that.

Rwanda must either grant asylum, grant a right to remain or allow them to leave.

Rwanda has previous history of denying 100% of applications.
They can decide they are vulnerable and be sent back.
UK has no right of refusal.

The treaty depends on the reliability of the Rwanda government, which is hardly a shining example of stability:

Related indicators	Latest value	Reference	Measure
Rule of law	0.20	2021	points
Government effectiveness	0.26	2021	points
Control of corruption	0.60	2021	points
Regulatory quality	0.07	2021	points
Voice and accountability	-0.96	2021	points
Political stability	0.17	2021	points
Corruption perceptions - Transparency International	51	2022	points
Political rights	6	2020	points
Civil liberties	6	2020	points
Competitiveness	52.80	2019	points
Cost of starting a business	0.00	2019	percent of per capita GNI
Shadow economy	28.05	2015	percent

Rwanda Political stability - data, chart | TheGlobalEconomy.com

Rwanda: Political stability index (-2.5 weak; 2.5 strong): The latest value from 2023 is 0.11 points, an increase from 0.08 points in 2022. In comparison, the world average is -0.06 points, based on data from 193 countries. Historically, the average for Rwanda from 1996 to 2023 is -0.52 points...

www.theglobaleconomy.com

 

[motorbiking]

this may help you understand it:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjMq9O8u6CDAxUSUkEAHVc6DPcQFnoECBgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fmedia%2F6570603674693000124888df%2FEM_CS_Rwanda_1.2023_UK_Rwanda_Agreement_Asylum_Partnership_Protection_Refugees_Migrants.odt&usg=AOvVaw2sOyyeYEOnLbq8WaIt19vN&opi=89978449

They don't say that UK can refuse anyone neither.

No need since no power exists to request it.

It says that UK may request that someone is returned. It does not say they can refuse someone that Rwanda wants to return.

again because no such power exists

It does not say that.

its a fact. The power is one way.

Rwanda has previous history of denying 100% of applications.

irrelevant

They can decide they are vulnerable and be sent back.

It doesn't give them such a right

UK has no right of refusal.

save for our domestic law and the fact that the treaty doesn't grant such a right

 

[Roy Bloom]

this may help you understand it:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjMq9O8u6CDAxUSUkEAHVc6DPcQFnoECBgQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.publishing.service.gov.uk%2Fmedia%2F6570603674693000124888df%2FEM_CS_Rwanda_1.2023_UK_Rwanda_Agreement_Asylum_Partnership_Protection_Refugees_Migrants.odt&usg=AOvVaw2sOyyeYEOnLbq8WaIt19vN&opi=89978449

You made several claims about what was in the treaty, but you refuse to present the relevant parts of the treaty that you claim exists.
And as usual you expect others to find it for you.

So all we have is your opinion.
As I've already said:

Your opinion is unwanted and your advice unwarranted.

So show us the bits in the Treaty that you claim exists.

 

[motorbiking]

The issue is they don’t exist. Hence if the treaty is silent, you cannot infer rights.

It would be like arguing a business to business contract included a warranty when the contract was silent.

You are the one making claims that it says something it doesn’t.

Of course I could have said more boll@x from you rather than checking to see if you’d found something I’d missed. I hadn’t.

 

[Roy Bloom]

save for our domestic law and the fact that the treaty doesn't grant such a right

Domestic law is no excuse for not respecting the Treaty.

A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

Vienna Convention Law Treaties

 

[motorbiking]

As an international treaty, any promises cannot be relied on by claimants in UK courts. By contrast, under the Rwandan constitution, the Treaty becomes part of domestic law once it is ratified by the country. I don't think this was by accident.

 

[Roy Bloom]

The issue is they don’t exist. Hence if the treaty is silent, you cannot infer rights.
It would be like arguing a business to business contract included a warranty when the contract was silent.
You are the one making claims that it says something it doesn’t.

But it does exist:

Article 19: Resettlement of vulnerable refugees​

The Parties shall make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom,

It does not specify who or why or how the refugees are detemined to be vulnerable.
By your argument, that if it doesn't exist, it can't be invoked, then this is a nonsense clause because it does not specify how vulnerable refugees are to be determined.
According to your logic, it can't be invoked.

The Treaty does not need to dot every 'i', and cross every 't'.
The Vienna Convention goes on to explain that "a reasonable interpretation of the Treaty is expected by both parties".
Ergo, Rwanda can be reasonably expected to determine who are vulnerable refugees.
And if UK can request that refugees can be returned, Rwanda can likewise ask for refugees to be returned. And if their request is denied, they refuse to take any more.
Rwanda gets to decide.

And International law trumps treaties.
A Treaty can not be honoured if it contravenes international law.

Of course I could have said more boll@x from you rather than checking to see if you’d found something I’d missed. I hadn’t.

You've missed it all because you haven't provided anything to refute what I've said.

Anyway, there's no refugees to be considered yet.

 

[Roy Bloom]

As an international treaty, any promises cannot be relied on by claimants in UK courts. By contrast, under the Rwandan constitution, the Treaty becomes part of domestic law once it is ratified by the country. I don't think this was by accident.

Domestic law does not prevent the application of the Treaty.
Whereas International law does prevent the application of a Treaty.

 

[motorbiking]

But it does exist:

It does not specify who or why or how the refugees are detemined to be vulnerable.
By your argument, that if it doesn't exist, it can't be invoked, then this is a nonsense clause because it does not specify how vulnerable refugees are to be determined.
According to your logic, it can't be invoked.

`No No, it specifically states the parties will do something. it just doesn't say when or how. So even if they never do it, the article will not be breached.

Ergo, Rwanda can be reasonably expected to determine who are vulnerable refugees.

without any text granting them such power? its not like the rest of the treaty isn't clear on who has which powers. Doesn't really fit with :
"a reasonable interpretation of the Treaty is expected by both parties".

And if UK can request that refugees can be returned, Rwanda can likewise ask for refugees to be returned.

. Again without any text confirming such a reciprocal arrangement. Thats a stretch so far, you could probably get to Rwanda with it,

And if their request is denied, they refuse to take any more.
Rwanda gets to decide.

. They seem to be quite keen on the gravy£££ that is promised.

 

[Roy Bloom]

`No No, it specifically states the parties will do something. it just doesn't say when or how. So even if they never do it, the article will not be breached.

That's what I said. It doesn't specify who, how or why a refugees is considered vulnerable, so Rwanda can choose who fits that category and require their return to UK.

without any text granting them such power? its not like the rest of the treaty isn't clear on who has which powers. Doesn't really fit with :
"a reasonable interpretation of the Treaty is expected by both parties".

There's nothing to prevent it neither, and treaties are not required to dot every 'i' and cross every 't'.
It says the UK may, it doesn't deprive Rwanda of that power. And Article 19 specifically gives that right.

. Again without any text confirming such a reciprocal arrangement. Thats a stretch so far, you could probably get to Rwanda with it,

Article 19 confers that right.

They seem to be quite keen on the gravy£££ that is promised.

They must be laughing all the way to the bank. £250 million and only three Home Secretaries arrived so far.
And a corruption index at:

Corruption perceptions - Transparency International

51

Currently 54th out of 180 countries, and on its way down.
Not surprising with all those millions sloshing around.

 

[JP_]

How much tax is paid on a minimum wage these days?

A fair bit. Although, I think that is wrong.

37.5 hour week on minimum wage:

Earn £20,319 in 2023/24 and you'll take home £17,878 across the year. This takes into account the national insurance (NI) change due in January 2024.

The NI change does mean your take-home pay will vary:

Until January, you'd expect to take home £1,487 a month
From January, you'd expect to take home £1,500 a month
Over the year you'll pay £1,550 income tax and £891 in national insurance.

That's better than it costing the system.

 

[motorbiking]

That's what I said. It doesn't specify who, how or why a refugees is considered vulnerable, so Rwanda can choose who fits that category and require their return to UK.

It says the UK may, it doesn't deprive Rwanda of that power. And Article 19 specifically gives that right.

Article 19 confers that right.

Except it doesn't so they can't.

 

[Roy Bloom]

Except it doesn't so they can't.

On your logic, the clause was a waste of time because it doesn't specify who, how or why a vulnerable person is determined. So it can't be applied.
I don't think they're in the habit of putting useless, pointless clauses in.