BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

briantrumpet said:

Jezyboy said:

briantrumpet said:

Jezyboy said:

rick_chasey said:

Meanwhile in now hostile international relations with the continent

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/09/france-accuses-patel-of-blackmail-in-row-over-channel-migrants

Priti Patel has been accused by France’s interior minister of plotting “financial blackmail” and a violation of international maritime law in a deepening diplomatic row over efforts to prevent migrants from crossing the Channel by boat.

Gérald Darmanin said that UK plans, released on Wednesday night, to send back boats of vulnerable people into French waters would not be accepted by his government.

“France will not accept any practice that breaks maritime law, nor any financial blackmail,” Darmanin wrote on Twitter.

I'm really not sure what the government can do about this. But it does seem that so far they have done nothing but come out with soundbites that temporarily satisfy Daily Express readers.

Sorry, I don't understand the objection... isn't that the main criterion to satisfy for Johnson and his 'team'?

Judging by comments, poeple are starting to cotton on to the fact that for all Patel's harsh words, the problem has not been resolved at all.

Obviously winter will see the issue decreasing somewhat.

I think the 'tough woman' act is all she's got. Like most of Johnson's cabinet, she hasn't got the intellect or strategic skills to devise a coherent and workable plan to follow through her bombast.

Do you really think there is a coherent and workable plan when the reaction to turning back floating boats that are easily able to make it back to France is seen as some Draconian measure.

I particularly like the claims that it is so dangerous out there that these people need rescued immediately yet if they are delivered or shepherded south of the rescue responsibility the French don't want to rescue them. Funny how the French seem happy to let them leave the beach and into this certain death.

Why should they be returned to France? They are no more France's problem than ours. The idea that having made your way across a continent and spent a few weeks in Sangatte, you would be put off by a shouty women and her press releases is pretty laughable

They have already reached at least one civilised, safe country (France) in which they could claim asylum yet they choose to continue to the UK. If they really were desperate asylum seekers they would be happy to be in France or indeed anywhere on the continent of milk and honey. After all, we keep getting told in Cake Stop how much better it is over there....

Beggars can't be choosers, as the saying goes.

Except they can choose. It's a good job we agreed all this and wrote it down in 1951 rather than relying on trite little sayings. We signed up when Churchill was PM so it must be OK.

Things change in line with the situation. This is a good example.

I know ignoring treaties is very on trend with your lot but if you want something different we need to withdraw from the UNHCR Convention and there's no sign of that happening.
One thing's certain Priti threatening to withhold some money from France is not going to make any difference to anything.

Nothing has changed anyway: this is no different to Ugandan Asians fleeing Idi Amin or Vietnamese refugees who ended up in the UK via Hong Kong. People go where they have some connection.

What connection is there here? You seem to be assuming.

Anyway, I'm sure the French authorities are trying very hard to dissuade or prevent these people from making a dangerous journey in crowded shipping lanes...

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

It is always easy to criticise everything to do with the asylum process, but very hard to come up with any solutions.

I would suggest that rather than deliberately making the process as drawn out and opaque as possible, in the mistaken belief that this will put off all but genuine claimants, it would be better to resource the department sufficiently that decisions can be made relatively quickly and both parties can move on rather than deal with years of the applicant's status being in limbo.

I do think that the idea that we can control migration - something that has occurred since there were people - by implementing a bit more bureaucracy is like trying to hold back the tide with a carrier bag. You can't stop people migrating; all you can do is try to manage it better.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

It is always easy to criticise everything to do with the asylum process, but very hard to come up with any solutions.

I would suggest that rather than deliberately making the process as drawn out and opaque as possible, in the mistaken belief that this will put off all but genuine claimants, it would be better to resource the department sufficiently that decisions can be made relatively quickly and both parties can move on rather than deal with years of the applicant's status being in limbo.

I do think that the idea that we can control migration - something that has occurred since there were people - by implementing a bit more bureaucracy is like trying to hold back the tide with a carrier bag. You can't stop people migrating; all you can do is try to manage it better.

Applicants are entitled to legal representation and due process under the law. As a result, it will always take a long time to refuse an application. That isn't really the main issue though - the government can't do anything with most of the refused applicants as their declared country will not accept them back. Note that the declared country of origin may not be their actual country of origin, but the UK will not be able to prove otherwise.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

It is always easy to criticise everything to do with the asylum process, but very hard to come up with any solutions.

I would suggest that rather than deliberately making the process as drawn out and opaque as possible, in the mistaken belief that this will put off all but genuine claimants, it would be better to resource the department sufficiently that decisions can be made relatively quickly and both parties can move on rather than deal with years of the applicant's status being in limbo.

I do think that the idea that we can control migration - something that has occurred since there were people - by implementing a bit more bureaucracy is like trying to hold back the tide with a carrier bag. You can't stop people migrating; all you can do is try to manage it better.

Applicants are entitled to legal representation and due process under the law. As a result, it will always take a long time to refuse an application. That isn't really the main issue though - the government can't do anything with most of the refused applicants as their declared country will not accept them back. Note that the declared country of origin may not be their actual country of origin, but the UK will not be able to prove otherwise.

If the declared country won't accept them back that would seem to be a pretty significant point in favour of their claim: that they have been effectively exiled.

I accept that due process is not going to be a couple of days but it needn't be years. The entire legal system is mired in delays with 5 year waits for even serious criminal cases to come to court. That is something we could choose to fix. We could also try harder to avoid instigating migration.

elbowloh

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.

Jail people for what?

For entering a country without the right paperwork. The remainers amongst you love a good bit of paperwork. We make th domestic laws in old blighty do we not.

There is no 'right paperwork' for claiming asylum, for pretty obvious reasons. The people crossing the Channel are not breaking the law. They're just doing something very dangerous.

And often they have no form of identification for themselves.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

It is always easy to criticise everything to do with the asylum process, but very hard to come up with any solutions.

I would suggest that rather than deliberately making the process as drawn out and opaque as possible, in the mistaken belief that this will put off all but genuine claimants, it would be better to resource the department sufficiently that decisions can be made relatively quickly and both parties can move on rather than deal with years of the applicant's status being in limbo.

I do think that the idea that we can control migration - something that has occurred since there were people - by implementing a bit more bureaucracy is like trying to hold back the tide with a carrier bag. You can't stop people migrating; all you can do is try to manage it better.

Applicants are entitled to legal representation and due process under the law. As a result, it will always take a long time to refuse an application. That isn't really the main issue though - the government can't do anything with most of the refused applicants as their declared country will not accept them back. Note that the declared country of origin may not be their actual country of origin, but the UK will not be able to prove otherwise.

If the declared country won't accept them back that would seem to be a pretty significant point in favour of their claim: that they have been effectively exiled.

I accept that due process is not going to be a couple of days but it needn't be years. The entire legal system is mired in delays with 5 year waits for even serious criminal cases to come to court. That is something we could choose to fix. We could also try harder to avoid instigating migration.

A country not willing to accept someone is simply evidence that there is insufficient documentation not that they are persecuted in that country.

rick_chasey

Now in the third week without any sparkling water ffs. Can’t get it anywhere

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Now in the third week without any sparkling water ffs. Can’t get it anywhere

I think that's what is known as a first world problem. I suspect there are other things that we're short of that might be a little bit more important. Who actually buys fizzy water anyway?

rick_chasey

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Now in the third week without any sparkling water ffs. Can’t get it anywhere

I think that's what is known as a first world problem. I suspect there are other things that we're short of that might be a little bit more important. Who actually buys fizzy water anyway?

Me. I do. Lots of people do.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Now in the third week without any sparkling water ffs. Can’t get it anywhere

I think that's what is known as a first world problem. I suspect there are other things that we're short of that might be a little bit more important. Who actually buys fizzy water anyway?

Me. I do. Lots of people do.

But is it really worth getting so animated about? If that was the worst impact of Brexit I'd be more than happy. Get a soda stream and a tap

rjsterry

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Now in the third week without any sparkling water ffs. Can’t get it anywhere

I think that's what is known as a first world problem. I suspect there are other things that we're short of that might be a little bit more important. Who actually buys fizzy water anyway?

Me. I do. Lots of people do.

But is it really worth getting so animated about? If that was the worst impact of Brexit I'd be more than happy. Get a soda stream and a tap

Tap's out of stock. New stock expected late 2022.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Now in the third week without any sparkling water ffs. Can’t get it anywhere

I think that's what is known as a first world problem. I suspect there are other things that we're short of that might be a little bit more important. Who actually buys fizzy water anyway?

Me. I do. Lots of people do.

As mentioned upthread, I personally think it would be a #brexitbonus if people learnt that bottled water is something we don't need. I'll admit I was buying the odd bottle at the French place, but realised I was being a d1ck, as the water out of the tap comes straight from the mountains behind the house. When I look at how much bottled water is in the local supermarket, the energy involved in transport and packaging, when there's good water straight out of the tap at virtually zero cost to me or the planet, whey would I buy bottled water?

rick_chasey

Because I like fizzy water?

I do sometimes forget that everything in the uk is a snobbery issue so you have to pick and chose the things you are allowed to say you are missing as part of the shortages.

If it is a first would country I should be able to by the water I like.

Dressing the shortage up as some environmental bonus is a bit stupid, for obvious reasons.

elbowloh

rick_chasey said:

Because I like fizzy water?

Get one of those taps that carbonates the water.

rick_chasey

elbowloh said:

rick_chasey said:

Because I like fizzy water?

Get one of those taps that carbonates the water.

Lol this is the most forum response.

elbowloh

rick_chasey said:

elbowloh said:

rick_chasey said:

Because I like fizzy water?

Get one of those taps that carbonates the water.

Lol this is the most forum response.

You're having a kitchen fitted and are getting an Italian fridge (or not). It's more borgioese to continue buying bottled because you feel entitled to fizzy water at the expense of the environment. In fact it's almost right wing thinking, "I'm alright jack and feck everyone else, so long as I get to do what I want"

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

Because I like fizzy water?

I do sometimes forget that everything in the uk is a snobbery issue so you have to pick and chose the things you are allowed to say you are missing as part of the shortages.

If it is a first would country I should be able to by the water I like.

Dressing the shortage up as some environmental bonus is a bit stupid, for obvious reasons.

"Because I like wearing fur."

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

elbowloh said:

rick_chasey said:

Because I like fizzy water?

Get one of those taps that carbonates the water.

Lol this is the most forum response.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/05/environmental-impact-of-bottled-water-up-to-3500-times-greater-than-tap-water

elbowloh

Sodastream for £70 and reusable bottles.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

Now in the third week without any sparkling water ffs. Can’t get it anywhere

I think that's what is known as a first world problem. I suspect there are other things that we're short of that might be a little bit more important. Who actually buys fizzy water anyway?

Pretty sure you can get soda streams cheap on Amazon or Ebay if you're that desperate to be middle class.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

elbowloh said:

rick_chasey said:

Because I like fizzy water?

Get one of those taps that carbonates the water.

Lol this is the most forum response.

You might have received more sympathy if you had posted your trivial annoyance in the thread for trivial annoyances.

Stevo_666

elbowloh said:

Sodastream for £70 and reusable bottles.

Beat me to it.

Does also show how minor the whinges have become.

Stevo_666

elbowloh said:

rick_chasey said:

elbowloh said:

rick_chasey said:

Because I like fizzy water?

Get one of those taps that carbonates the water.

Lol this is the most forum response.

You're having a kitchen fitted and are getting an Italian fridge (or not). It's more borgioese to continue buying bottled because you feel entitled to fizzy water at the expense of the environment. In fact it's almost right wing thinking, "I'm alright jack and censored everyone else, so long as I get to do what I want"

Having right wing attitudes was once likened to snogging in public - disgusting, unless you're involved

elbowloh

Stevo_666 said:

elbowloh said:

rick_chasey said:

elbowloh said:

rick_chasey said:

Because I like fizzy water?

Get one of those taps that carbonates the water.

Lol this is the most forum response.

You're having a kitchen fitted and are getting an Italian fridge (or not). It's more borgioese to continue buying bottled because you feel entitled to fizzy water at the expense of the environment. In fact it's almost right wing thinking, "I'm alright jack and censored everyone else, so long as I get to do what I want"

Having right wing attitudes was once likened to snogging in public - disgusting, unless you're involved

I just thought it might be the thing that Rick would find most insulting 😉

Stevo_666

elbowloh said:

Stevo_666 said:

elbowloh said:

rick_chasey said:

elbowloh said:

rick_chasey said:

Because I like fizzy water?

Get one of those taps that carbonates the water.

Lol this is the most forum response.

You're having a kitchen fitted and are getting an Italian fridge (or not). It's more borgioese to continue buying bottled because you feel entitled to fizzy water at the expense of the environment. In fact it's almost right wing thinking, "I'm alright jack and censored everyone else, so long as I get to do what I want"

Having right wing attitudes was once likened to snogging in public - disgusting, unless you're involved

I just thought it might be the thing that Rick would find most insulting 😉

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

elbowloh said:

Sodastream for £70 and reusable bottles.

Beat me to it.

Does also show how minor the whinges have become.

Compared to the labour shortages in the construction industry and the scarcity of materials, fizzy water certainly seems trivial.

john80

rjsterry said:

Jezyboy said:

tailwindhome said:

john80 said:

tailwindhome said:

john80 said:

The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.

When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?

We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.

Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?

Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?

I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.

I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.

You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...

The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.

They are mainly in France are they not.

rjsterry

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

Jezyboy said:

tailwindhome said:

john80 said:

tailwindhome said:

john80 said:

The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.

When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?

We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.

Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?

Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?

I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.

I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.

You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...

The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.

They are mainly in France are they not.

No.

john80

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

Jezyboy said:

tailwindhome said:

john80 said:

tailwindhome said:

john80 said:

The channel crossing would be sorted quickly if the UK set up processing centres abroad then jailed people arriving without following this process. Twenty years at her majesties pleasure might make a few think about believing in the process.

When you say 'set up processing centres abroad', where are you thinking?

We have Embassy's in a lot of countries.

Ok. So someone seeking asylum in the UK makes their way to the UK embassy and stands in the queue waiting for a FCO civil servant to process their claim?

Presumably there's a middle ground where a asylum seeker visa could be granted?

I've only visited two embassies in my life, neither were really set up in any way shape or form to process asylum seekers, bearing in mind its a complex issue where you're waiting for a decision for a good while, and need to be housed during that time. Asylum seekers could then just get a flight rather than give money to criminals.

I think that this would be a more just solution, but does have the risk of vastly increasing the number of applications.

You'd then be able to argue that those arriving by small boat, should go to jail...

The problem with this idea is that it relies on 1. there being a functioning UK embassy and 2. the government of the asylum seeker's home country not wanting to prevent them leaving. Afghanistan gives a current example of both. We've closed the Kabul embassy and the Taliban seem keen on preventing people from leaving. East Germany was so not keen on people leaving that they built a wall and shot people who tried to cross it. The very nature of asylum means that asking people fleeing their country to fill in a form and 'go through the proper channels' is effectively removing access altogether. Criminalising those not following your model is unlikely to be a threat to people already fleeing state persecution or war.

They are mainly in France are they not.

No.

Given we are mainly discussing the channel crossings I would suggest to you that they are mainly in France.

rick_chasey

Ok.

I won’t die on the hill, but let’s clear a few things up.

1) I think the bottled drinks shortage is indicative of quite a significant problem. It is a regulatory problem as well as a general supply chain issue. Hence it being Brexit relevant. It’s illustrative. It is also not exclusive to fizzy water - it’s any kind of plastic bottled drink.

2) the arguments of the environmental cost of bottled fizzy water (vs doing it yourself) are beside the point. No one is restricting the supply for reasons of the environment. At all. Environmental considerations have nothing to do with the shortage. Feel free to have the argument but that’s a very different one

3) the “do it at your own home instead”. a) not sure you lot understand how early you are locked into kitchens. b) the argument that DIY carbonation is more environmentally friendly is disputed, once you factor in the inefficiency of having small domestic co2 cartridges etc. Plus, soda streams don’t taste the same.