foolish, and indeed undermining decision of the government. undermining of the whole international system on protecting refugees. it is essentially this country trying to wash its hands of responsibility is rather than addressing the needs of refugees. that ultimately isn t going to help crack down on smugglers, it isn t going to address the disproportionate situation of refugee needs elsewhere in the world compared to here, or even as compared to here, or even as compared to here with us and france. the government says its policy is about cracking down on single men who are making the crossing. they say a vast majority of those are not seeking asylum through the proper channels, and therefore this policy would address that, and they also say it s about cracking down on people smugglers. but you are saying this policy doesn t address that in any shape orform? it this policy doesn t address that in any shape or form? any shape or form? it doesn t address anything any shape or form? i
in any shape orform? it doesn t address anything that you have said. the central point here is that it can t address the idea of people using so called legal roots, as the government puts it, because there aren t any other routes but this. the government doesn t make visas available for anyone to come here to seek asylum. it says through its system that you must get here first to do that, however. so this is what is left to people and these are the journeys, therefore, that a few of them make. now, if it doesn t do anything about that, i m afraid we will see significant numbers of people, not especially large, but significant numbers of people continuing to be exploited by smugglers on these routes, because no one is doing anything to address the needs of those people. some of whom even have family here, and indeed other connections here. it makes no sense whatsoever. and briefly if you would, what is the better solution
has managed to cross. as for the deal itself, i think it is an extraordinarily reckless, foolish, and indeed undermining decision of the government. undermining of the whole international system on protecting refugees. it is essentially this country trying to wash its hands of responsibility is rather than addressing the needs of refugees. that ultimately isn t going to help crack down on smugglers, it isn t going to address the disproportionate situation of refugee needs elsewhere in the world compared to here, or even as compared to here with us and france. the government says its policy is about cracking down on single men who are making the crossing. they say a vast majority of those are not seeking asylum through the proper channels, and therefore this policy would address that, and they also say it s about cracking down on people smugglers. but you are saying this policy doesn t address that
nothing is working. exactly. they have tried so long to paint a caricature of our values and the policies we ve advocated for and now people are finding out that they are actually successful. for so long, i was scared of coming out and saying you know what, i actually support conservative values and conservative policy because of the caricature that i had painted in my brain. but then you realize it s going to make your life better. you re going to actually have freedom. you re going to be able to start businesses to have a successful family and to live in this country and the mate was ashley it was meant to be lived in and then the policy doesn t look so good and they can t use things like white guilt and patriarchyt marginalized and oppressed people to trick you into being silent and full of guilt. people are standing up. they are not taking it. laura: fantastic conversation. thank you so much. we want to see ukraine remain a sovereign country, democratic country able to protec
the home secretary, priti patel, had to personally approve the policy which could see immigrants who ve arrived in the uk unofficially flown to rwanda. 0pposition parties have condemned the proposals. i ve been speaking to our political correspondent, jonathan blake, who explained how it is that a minister is able to override a policy if it doesn t meet the usual criteria. it is relatively rare for the so called ministerial direction to be used to get things done, certainly not unheard of. as far as we can make out, this is the second time in 30 years it s been used at the home office. what it means effectively is the home secretary instructs officials to carry out a policy, in effect overruling or despite the concerns or objections of a senior official. it happens when a policy doesn t meet the usual criteria. in this case, it was all to do with the cost and whether it