I have given you a solution. The problem is that people like you only see reasons not to do things while people like me do the opposite.
And people like you see simple solutions to really complex problems. Populism in a nutshell.
Before I carry on, can we please drop the "lefty" rubbish you spit at anyone who even slightly disagrees with you. On this topic, I suspect we are in complete agreement. I want to see the small boats stopped. I want all illegals removed. I would also like to see any legal become illegal if they are convicted of a crime. If it still exists, I want to see applications for entry rejected for e.g. elderly parents of new citizens/residents. And I would like to see people issued with NHS cards to show they are paying NI (or have paid sufficient to qualify for a state pension or benefits) before they receive free care (A&E excluded).
In terms of how, your suggestion of the Royal Navy mopping them up and dropping them off at their origin country is pie in the sky. Too many reasons for that to be anything but barking nuts.
We had Rwanda as a possible option; but consider the cost.
The Home Office would pay £370 million, and then further amounts depending on the number of people relocated to Rwanda.
The UK government would then make payments that are dependent on the number of individuals relocated: £120 million once 300 people have been relocated; and payments of £20,000 per individual relocated thereafter.
The Home Office would
also pay a total of £151,000
per individual (!) relocated to cover the asylum processing and operational costs.
If a relocated individual decides to leave Rwanda, the UK would stop payments for that individual but would pay the Government of Rwanda a one-off £10,000 per individual to help facilitate their voluntary departure.
That is for, say, 40,000 to 50,000 migrants a year, possibly more. While I accept a reduction in small boats through disincentive, remember not all illegals come by dingy; and there are countless folk already here who will need to be processed.
£715m was spent on this scheme to the point it was scrapped. A shocking waste to the public purse, but pennies compared to the cost of the scheme if fully implemented.
I am aware that feelings run high over this issue, but have you really considered the opportunity cost of full implementation? The public won't stand for the current situation to continue unchecked and will vote in Reform to deal with it.
However, they will absolutely not tolerate the collapse in public services given the eye watering sums that will need to be spent to
properly fund this scheme.
And will it even work? Australia is the example cited. Less than a 1000 in offshore detention; and record numbers of immigrants recorded. A total failure.
Recall the moment when Farage went from promising the earth without costing to complete row back on all promises unless properly costed. Clearly, his backers in the City had taken him aside and had a quiet word. If Reform come in on a mandate of strict immigration but through sustainable funding, I would be genuinely surprised if they reignite this policy or any other that is actually effective in numerical/disincentive terms. It will be all "ICE-lite" and showy political stunts demonstrating "something being done". I suspect their rear ends will have barely warmed the Front Bench before there are cries of "Betrayal" from this site and elsewhere.
I don't have a perfect solution. Continue hard negotiation with the various "donor" nations to take them back. Swallow some humble pie with the EU to tie any application made here or there with each other. Migrants are flocking here if their application is rejected as failure in one EU state is failure in all. If it is also failure here, they may not come. However, that may still leave the practical issue of where to "return" them to countries who may not want them back.
Both options will require unpalatable compromise and cost but are better and more cost effective than the other options.
www.bbc.co.uk
England
USA
Veneto
France
