LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.2 -
Apart from being way more expensive than alternative UK-based options for accommodating asylum seekers.Stevo_666 said:
Sounds like Rwanda isn't such a bad idea after all then.Jezyboy said:Sounds like something that would be easy to change unilaterally with no issues.
But in the real world, "Rwanda" isn't designed to do anything about asylum seekers. It is designed to generate "outrage" against "lefty lawyers" for two reasons:
1 - To try and erode support for Starmer, who is obviously a lefty lawyer, being a left-wing politician and a lawyer.
2 - To try and generate support for measures to reduce the power of lefty lawyers to stop a Tory government doing what it likes where human rights might otherwise impose restraints.0 -
What's happening in Dover?Stevo_666 said:
Why aren't you down at Dover with a loudhailer?rjsterry said:
Lol.Stevo_666 said:https://telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/08/15/channel-migrant-crisis-liberal-hypocrisy/
Quote in case paywalled:
Whenever anyone says migrants should stay in France, British centrists are furious. But logically they should agree
The row over small boats has been raging for a very long time. Yet there’s still one aspect of it that I don’t understand.
Since 2016, British liberals have given the consistent impression that the EU is an earthly paradise: prosperous, stable, forward-looking and inclusive. By contrast, they fume, Brexit Britain is a hateful, backward, crumbling, economically doomed dump.
Their position is clear. Yet, whenever anyone suggests that migrants should stay in France – the largest country in the EU – rather than cross the Channel to Britain, liberals are appalled. They react as if it’s unspeakably cruel and inhumane.
Logically, however, they should take the opposite view. They should think it’s cruel and inhumane to make the migrants stay in nasty old Britain, rather than the heavenly EU. If anything, British metropolitan liberals should be gathering in their tens of thousands to form a human barrier all the way along the Kent coast, in order to prevent migrants from entering – for their own good.
“Turn back immediately!” they should bellow through their loudhailers at every approaching dinghy. “Do not, repeat not, seek sanctuary in Britain! This country is a failing, bigoted, corrupt, austerity-ruined, sewage-sodden, virulently Islamophobic hellhole populated by ghastly Tory-voting gammon who worship statues of slave traders and despise anyone whose skin is any colour but crimson! So for pity’s sake, turn your boats around, and enjoy a glorious new life in elegant, cultured, joyously cosmopolitan France! We’d leap aboard and join you ourselves, if only the stupid Brexiteers hadn’t ended our freedom of movement!”
That at least would be logically consistent. Instead, however, British liberals are still outraged by Lee Anderson’s suggestion that migrants return to France. But why? Don’t they think these poor migrants have already suffered enough, without having to endure the misery of life in Brexit Britain? What makes liberals so eager to inflict this fresh horror upon these desperate, vulnerable people?
It seems dreadfully callous of them. I think it’s time they showed some compassion – by campaigning to shut our borders straight away.
I suppose Churchill - who ratified our membership of the treaty - did technically stand as a Liberal in the 1920s, so maybe that's what the author meant.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
On a lighter note I see that CCHQ have sent out campaign materials to all the wrong places. MP for Wrexham has leaflets for Gloucester and so on.
Seems they just can't be bothered any more.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
There really isn't Stevo, it is utter bilge.Stevo_666 said:
It made me smile. Taking the p1ss out of the Libs is a worthy cause, but behind the humour there isn a pointskyblueamateur said:
You have to pay to read this drivel? Brilliant 😂Stevo_666 said:https://telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/08/15/channel-migrant-crisis-liberal-hypocrisy/
Quote in case paywalled:
Whenever anyone says migrants should stay in France, British centrists are furious. But logically they should agree
The row over small boats has been raging for a very long time. Yet there’s still one aspect of it that I don’t understand.
Since 2016, British liberals have given the consistent impression that the EU is an earthly paradise: prosperous, stable, forward-looking and inclusive. By contrast, they fume, Brexit Britain is a hateful, backward, crumbling, economically doomed dump.
Their position is clear. Yet, whenever anyone suggests that migrants should stay in France – the largest country in the EU – rather than cross the Channel to Britain, liberals are appalled. They react as if it’s unspeakably cruel and inhumane.
Logically, however, they should take the opposite view. They should think it’s cruel and inhumane to make the migrants stay in nasty old Britain, rather than the heavenly EU. If anything, British metropolitan liberals should be gathering in their tens of thousands to form a human barrier all the way along the Kent coast, in order to prevent migrants from entering – for their own good.
“Turn back immediately!” they should bellow through their loudhailers at every approaching dinghy. “Do not, repeat not, seek sanctuary in Britain! This country is a failing, bigoted, corrupt, austerity-ruined, sewage-sodden, virulently Islamophobic hellhole populated by ghastly Tory-voting gammon who worship statues of slave traders and despise anyone whose skin is any colour but crimson! So for pity’s sake, turn your boats around, and enjoy a glorious new life in elegant, cultured, joyously cosmopolitan France! We’d leap aboard and join you ourselves, if only the stupid Brexiteers hadn’t ended our freedom of movement!”
That at least would be logically consistent. Instead, however, British liberals are still outraged by Lee Anderson’s suggestion that migrants return to France. But why? Don’t they think these poor migrants have already suffered enough, without having to endure the misery of life in Brexit Britain? What makes liberals so eager to inflict this fresh horror upon these desperate, vulnerable people?
It seems dreadfully callous of them. I think it’s time they showed some compassion – by campaigning to shut our borders straight away.0 -
I think there is a mutual pact between the Tories and Labour to not mention "cause and effect" in this area given the Blair regime's penchant for "intervention" in certain parts of the world.Jezyboy said:
It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.pblakeney said:Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.
1 -
Absolutely. Top 5 countries of origin for UK applications are:wallace_and_gromit said:
I think there is a mutual pact between the Tories and Labour to not mention "cause and effect" in this area given the Blair regime's penchant for "intervention" in certain parts of the world.Jezyboy said:
It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.pblakeney said:Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.
Albania, Afghanistan (invaded then ran away), Iran (instigated a coup to overthrow the government because they had nationalised their oil industry), India (some history), and Iraq (invaded).
I don't think we invaded Albania,
Oh and there's Libya, too.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I wasn't implying it was a "score draw" in this respect. Just that Labour has more than enough "previous" to be quite happy if no-one talks about it.rjsterry said:
Absolutely. Top 5 countries of origin for UK applications are:wallace_and_gromit said:
I think there is a mutual pact between the Tories and Labour to not mention "cause and effect" in this area given the Blair regime's penchant for "intervention" in certain parts of the world.Jezyboy said:
It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.pblakeney said:Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.
Albania, Afghanistan (invaded then ran away), Iran (instigated a coup to overthrow the government because they had nationalised their oil industry), India (some history), and Iraq (invaded).
I don't think we invaded Albania,
Oh and there's Libya, too.0 -
Didn't mean it was. We have a long history of dicking around with other countries and then expecting someone else to clean up the mess. Dimwits asking why people are applying to the UK rather than France only need to look back 20 years or so.wallace_and_gromit said:
I wasn't implying it was a "score draw" in this respect. Just that Labour has more than enough "previous" to be quite happy if no-one talks about it.rjsterry said:
Absolutely. Top 5 countries of origin for UK applications are:wallace_and_gromit said:
I think there is a mutual pact between the Tories and Labour to not mention "cause and effect" in this area given the Blair regime's penchant for "intervention" in certain parts of the world.Jezyboy said:
It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.pblakeney said:Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.
Albania, Afghanistan (invaded then ran away), Iran (instigated a coup to overthrow the government because they had nationalised their oil industry), India (some history), and Iraq (invaded).
I don't think we invaded Albania,
Oh and there's Libya, too.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Possibly. I think if you could do it in a non political point scoring way, it might be worthwhile.wallace_and_gromit said:
I think there is a mutual pact between the Tories and Labour to not mention "cause and effect" in this area given the Blair regime's penchant for "intervention" in certain parts of the world.Jezyboy said:
It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.pblakeney said:Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.
0 -
This isn't the best advert for the asylum system. Assuming it is Iraqi Kurds that make up the majority of Iraqi applications, then together with Albanians and Indians, that's a lot of people unlikely to be granted asylum.rjsterry said:
Absolutely. Top 5 countries of origin for UK applications are:wallace_and_gromit said:
I think there is a mutual pact between the Tories and Labour to not mention "cause and effect" in this area given the Blair regime's penchant for "intervention" in certain parts of the world.Jezyboy said:
It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.pblakeney said:Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.
Albania, Afghanistan (invaded then ran away), Iran (instigated a coup to overthrow the government because they had nationalised their oil industry), India (some history), and Iraq (invaded).
I don't think we invaded Albania,
Oh and there's Libya, too.0 -
I may be being dim here, but my understanding is that the UK's interventions circa 10-20 years ago have increased the number of displaced people, but that the overwhelming reason for those looking to come to the UK are:rjsterry said:Dimwits asking why people are applying to the UK rather than France only need to look back 20 years or so.
1 - Language
2 - No ID cards
3 - Family here already
You seem to be suggesting - apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick - that people are coming to the UK rather than France as some sort of payback for UK causing them to leave their home country in the first place. I guess there may be a few who are so motivated, but I can't see this being a largescale reason for risking the Channel crossing on a lilo etc.
0 -
I rest my case about lefties having a poor sense of humour.First.Aspect said:
There really isn't Stevo, it is utter bilge.Stevo_666 said:
It made me smile. Taking the p1ss out of the Libs is a worthy cause, but behind the humour there isn a pointskyblueamateur said:
You have to pay to read this drivel? Brilliant 😂Stevo_666 said:https://telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/08/15/channel-migrant-crisis-liberal-hypocrisy/
Quote in case paywalled:
Whenever anyone says migrants should stay in France, British centrists are furious. But logically they should agree
The row over small boats has been raging for a very long time. Yet there’s still one aspect of it that I don’t understand.
Since 2016, British liberals have given the consistent impression that the EU is an earthly paradise: prosperous, stable, forward-looking and inclusive. By contrast, they fume, Brexit Britain is a hateful, backward, crumbling, economically doomed dump.
Their position is clear. Yet, whenever anyone suggests that migrants should stay in France – the largest country in the EU – rather than cross the Channel to Britain, liberals are appalled. They react as if it’s unspeakably cruel and inhumane.
Logically, however, they should take the opposite view. They should think it’s cruel and inhumane to make the migrants stay in nasty old Britain, rather than the heavenly EU. If anything, British metropolitan liberals should be gathering in their tens of thousands to form a human barrier all the way along the Kent coast, in order to prevent migrants from entering – for their own good.
“Turn back immediately!” they should bellow through their loudhailers at every approaching dinghy. “Do not, repeat not, seek sanctuary in Britain! This country is a failing, bigoted, corrupt, austerity-ruined, sewage-sodden, virulently Islamophobic hellhole populated by ghastly Tory-voting gammon who worship statues of slave traders and despise anyone whose skin is any colour but crimson! So for pity’s sake, turn your boats around, and enjoy a glorious new life in elegant, cultured, joyously cosmopolitan France! We’d leap aboard and join you ourselves, if only the stupid Brexiteers hadn’t ended our freedom of movement!”
That at least would be logically consistent. Instead, however, British liberals are still outraged by Lee Anderson’s suggestion that migrants return to France. But why? Don’t they think these poor migrants have already suffered enough, without having to endure the misery of life in Brexit Britain? What makes liberals so eager to inflict this fresh horror upon these desperate, vulnerable people?
It seems dreadfully callous of them. I think it’s time they showed some compassion – by campaigning to shut our borders straight away.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 'first safe country' thing stem from some EU rule that asylum seekers should apply in the first EU country they apply to? If that's the case is Stevo arguing we should rejoin the EU?rjsterry said:Absolutely no requirement for this fictional first safe country idea. France deals with all the people who apply for asylum in France.
0 -
Id say the latter is more likely to happen first.rjsterry said:
You can wish for what you like but until we withdraw from the treaty those are our obligations. We have agreed to deal with all applications on a case by case basis. The numbers are down to how much conflict there is and what links we have with those places.Stevo_666 said:
It should be our choice as to how many we accept.rjsterry said:
Explain why you think France, which already accepts significantly more applications than the UK, should take our share on top.Stevo_666 said:
Sounds like something needs to change then, as I've already said.wallace_and_gromit said:
We don’t have the right to return them to France.Stevo_666 said:
It's not perfect but clearly better than indefinite leave to remain. If we want to avoid the problems you describe in your first paragraph, then we should refuse them permission to stay up front. After all, they will be safe back in France.wallace_and_gromit said:
Problem with this as a concept is that it can and does take a very long time for the danger to cease. How long do you think it will be it to be safe to return to Afghanistan, Syria etc?Stevo_666 said:
I think people would be more accepting if those granted asylum were returned to their country of origin once the danger has ceased.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?Stevo_666 said:
Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?tailwindhome said:Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.
Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.
And in those long periods of time, folk put down roots, get jobs, put kids into school etc. Uprooting folk in those circumstances just to appease those on the Farage wing of society feels like a move to favour the wrong side of the argument. You don’t have to be a particularly lefty lawyer to see that sending a child “back” with one or more parent to a country where they’ve never been or only been as a baby etc. is firmly in the “really bad idea” category.
And we can’t refuse valid claims.
They are only in France because we have removed all other routes to applying for asylum.
It's up to France whether to let them stay or send them back depending on the circumstances. Where does it say France is OK to pass them over to another country when they are already safe in France?
It's nothing to do with France (or any other country that happens to be on a land route to the UK) and not their responsibility to deal with people applying for asylum in the UK. People can apply for asylum in whichever country they choose. Absolutely no requirement for this fictional first safe country idea. France deals with all the people who apply for asylum in France.
But you know all that.
Which do you think will happen first: rejoin the EU or withdraw from the the Refugee Convention 🙂.
However I still don't see anyone on here proposing any solution other than 'let them all in, the more the merrier'. Apart from making our more liberally minded posters feel virtuous, what does it do for the UK?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
They are using lilos cos there is no legal means of applying.wallace_and_gromit said:
I may be being dim here, but my understanding is that the UK's interventions circa 10-20 years ago have increased the number of displaced people, but that the overwhelming reason for those looking to come to the UK are:rjsterry said:Dimwits asking why people are applying to the UK rather than France only need to look back 20 years or so.
1 - Language
2 - No ID cards
3 - Family here already
You seem to be suggesting - apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick - that people are coming to the UK rather than France as some sort of payback for UK causing them to leave their home country in the first place. I guess there may be a few who are so motivated, but I can't see this being a largescale reason for risking the Channel crossing on a lilo etc.
Stop the means, stop the immigrants. It’s the Tory way.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
You do realise you've backed up my point that the Torygraph is on a par with the Daily Mash?Stevo_666 said:
I rest my case about lefties having a poor sense of humour.First.Aspect said:
There really isn't Stevo, it is utter bilge.Stevo_666 said:
It made me smile. Taking the p1ss out of the Libs is a worthy cause, but behind the humour there isn a pointskyblueamateur said:
You have to pay to read this drivel? Brilliant 😂Stevo_666 said:https://telegraph.co.uk/columnists/2023/08/15/channel-migrant-crisis-liberal-hypocrisy/
Quote in case paywalled:
Whenever anyone says migrants should stay in France, British centrists are furious. But logically they should agree
The row over small boats has been raging for a very long time. Yet there’s still one aspect of it that I don’t understand.
Since 2016, British liberals have given the consistent impression that the EU is an earthly paradise: prosperous, stable, forward-looking and inclusive. By contrast, they fume, Brexit Britain is a hateful, backward, crumbling, economically doomed dump.
Their position is clear. Yet, whenever anyone suggests that migrants should stay in France – the largest country in the EU – rather than cross the Channel to Britain, liberals are appalled. They react as if it’s unspeakably cruel and inhumane.
Logically, however, they should take the opposite view. They should think it’s cruel and inhumane to make the migrants stay in nasty old Britain, rather than the heavenly EU. If anything, British metropolitan liberals should be gathering in their tens of thousands to form a human barrier all the way along the Kent coast, in order to prevent migrants from entering – for their own good.
“Turn back immediately!” they should bellow through their loudhailers at every approaching dinghy. “Do not, repeat not, seek sanctuary in Britain! This country is a failing, bigoted, corrupt, austerity-ruined, sewage-sodden, virulently Islamophobic hellhole populated by ghastly Tory-voting gammon who worship statues of slave traders and despise anyone whose skin is any colour but crimson! So for pity’s sake, turn your boats around, and enjoy a glorious new life in elegant, cultured, joyously cosmopolitan France! We’d leap aboard and join you ourselves, if only the stupid Brexiteers hadn’t ended our freedom of movement!”
That at least would be logically consistent. Instead, however, British liberals are still outraged by Lee Anderson’s suggestion that migrants return to France. But why? Don’t they think these poor migrants have already suffered enough, without having to endure the misery of life in Brexit Britain? What makes liberals so eager to inflict this fresh horror upon these desperate, vulnerable people?
It seems dreadfully callous of them. I think it’s time they showed some compassion – by campaigning to shut our borders straight away.0 -
I don't see anyone saying that.Stevo_666 said:
Id say the latter is more likely to happen first.rjsterry said:
You can wish for what you like but until we withdraw from the treaty those are our obligations. We have agreed to deal with all applications on a case by case basis. The numbers are down to how much conflict there is and what links we have with those places.Stevo_666 said:
It should be our choice as to how many we accept.rjsterry said:
Explain why you think France, which already accepts significantly more applications than the UK, should take our share on top.Stevo_666 said:
Sounds like something needs to change then, as I've already said.wallace_and_gromit said:
We don’t have the right to return them to France.Stevo_666 said:
It's not perfect but clearly better than indefinite leave to remain. If we want to avoid the problems you describe in your first paragraph, then we should refuse them permission to stay up front. After all, they will be safe back in France.wallace_and_gromit said:
Problem with this as a concept is that it can and does take a very long time for the danger to cease. How long do you think it will be it to be safe to return to Afghanistan, Syria etc?Stevo_666 said:
I think people would be more accepting if those granted asylum were returned to their country of origin once the danger has ceased.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?Stevo_666 said:
Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?tailwindhome said:Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.
Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.
And in those long periods of time, folk put down roots, get jobs, put kids into school etc. Uprooting folk in those circumstances just to appease those on the Farage wing of society feels like a move to favour the wrong side of the argument. You don’t have to be a particularly lefty lawyer to see that sending a child “back” with one or more parent to a country where they’ve never been or only been as a baby etc. is firmly in the “really bad idea” category.
And we can’t refuse valid claims.
They are only in France because we have removed all other routes to applying for asylum.
It's up to France whether to let them stay or send them back depending on the circumstances. Where does it say France is OK to pass them over to another country when they are already safe in France?
It's nothing to do with France (or any other country that happens to be on a land route to the UK) and not their responsibility to deal with people applying for asylum in the UK. People can apply for asylum in whichever country they choose. Absolutely no requirement for this fictional first safe country idea. France deals with all the people who apply for asylum in France.
But you know all that.
Which do you think will happen first: rejoin the EU or withdraw from the the Refugee Convention 🙂.
However I still don't see anyone on here proposing any solution other than 'let them all in, the more the merrier'. Apart from making our more liberally minded posters feel virtuous, what does it do for the UK?
0 -
Heard on a pod that the UK is starting to be the option for people who fail to get into the EU now as well as pb's list. We are seen as a second bite of the cherry as it were...pblakeney said:
They are using lilos cos there is no legal means of applying.wallace_and_gromit said:
I may be being dim here, but my understanding is that the UK's interventions circa 10-20 years ago have increased the number of displaced people, but that the overwhelming reason for those looking to come to the UK are:rjsterry said:Dimwits asking why people are applying to the UK rather than France only need to look back 20 years or so.
1 - Language
2 - No ID cards
3 - Family here already
You seem to be suggesting - apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick - that people are coming to the UK rather than France as some sort of payback for UK causing them to leave their home country in the first place. I guess there may be a few who are so motivated, but I can't see this being a largescale reason for risking the Channel crossing on a lilo etc.
Stop the means, stop the immigrants. It’s the Tory way.We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
It is almost as if two world wars never happened, we weren't behind drafting up the framework to ensure it couldn't happen again, and if it did people would be treated a lot better than last time. Or that we weren't currently involved in a major war in Europe.Stevo_666 said:
Apart from making our more liberally minded posters feel virtuous, what does it do for the UK?rjsterry said:
You can wish for what you like but until we withdraw from the treaty those are our obligations. We have agreed to deal with all applications on a case by case basis. The numbers are down to how much conflict there is and what links we have with those places.Stevo_666 said:
It should be our choice as to how many we accept.rjsterry said:
Explain why you think France, which already accepts significantly more applications than the UK, should take our share on top.Stevo_666 said:
Sounds like something needs to change then, as I've already said.wallace_and_gromit said:
We don’t have the right to return them to France.Stevo_666 said:
It's not perfect but clearly better than indefinite leave to remain. If we want to avoid the problems you describe in your first paragraph, then we should refuse them permission to stay up front. After all, they will be safe back in France.wallace_and_gromit said:
Problem with this as a concept is that it can and does take a very long time for the danger to cease. How long do you think it will be it to be safe to return to Afghanistan, Syria etc?Stevo_666 said:
I think people would be more accepting if those granted asylum were returned to their country of origin once the danger has ceased.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?Stevo_666 said:
Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?tailwindhome said:Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.
Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.
And in those long periods of time, folk put down roots, get jobs, put kids into school etc. Uprooting folk in those circumstances just to appease those on the Farage wing of society feels like a move to favour the wrong side of the argument. You don’t have to be a particularly lefty lawyer to see that sending a child “back” with one or more parent to a country where they’ve never been or only been as a baby etc. is firmly in the “really bad idea” category.
And we can’t refuse valid claims.
They are only in France because we have removed all other routes to applying for asylum.
It's up to France whether to let them stay or send them back depending on the circumstances. Where does it say France is OK to pass them over to another country when they are already safe in France?
It's nothing to do with France (or any other country that happens to be on a land route to the UK) and not their responsibility to deal with people applying for asylum in the UK. People can apply for asylum in whichever country they choose. Absolutely no requirement for this fictional first safe country idea. France deals with all the people who apply for asylum in France.
But you know all that.
Which do you think will happen first: rejoin the EU or withdraw from the the Refugee Convention 🙂.
My money is the Tories getting voted out before any withdrawal from ECHR; followed by a complete takeover by the right wing of the party who then will achieve an even worse performance at the subsequent election; followed by a retreat to more centrist policies under a Cameron like figure. And it will never get mentioned again.
0 -
I read it as interventions increases the number of people who want/are forced to leave their countries.wallace_and_gromit said:
I may be being dim here, but my understanding is that the UK's interventions circa 10-20 years ago have increased the number of displaced people, but that the overwhelming reason for those looking to come to the UK are:rjsterry said:Dimwits asking why people are applying to the UK rather than France only need to look back 20 years or so.
1 - Language
2 - No ID cards
3 - Family here already
You seem to be suggesting - apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick - that people are coming to the UK rather than France as some sort of payback for UK causing them to leave their home country in the first place. I guess there may be a few who are so motivated, but I can't see this being a largescale reason for risking the Channel crossing on a lilo etc.
Once they have left, the options for choosing the UK could well be one of the 3 you list.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Thanks. I was right to be concerned I was being dim!pangolin said:
I read it as interventions increases the number of people who want/are forced to leave their countries.wallace_and_gromit said:
I may be being dim here, but my understanding is that the UK's interventions circa 10-20 years ago have increased the number of displaced people, but that the overwhelming reason for those looking to come to the UK are:rjsterry said:Dimwits asking why people are applying to the UK rather than France only need to look back 20 years or so.
1 - Language
2 - No ID cards
3 - Family here already
You seem to be suggesting - apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick - that people are coming to the UK rather than France as some sort of payback for UK causing them to leave their home country in the first place. I guess there may be a few who are so motivated, but I can't see this being a largescale reason for risking the Channel crossing on a lilo etc.
Once they have left, the options for choosing the UK could well be one of the 3 you list.0 -
The % granted asylum is pretty steady. Why do you think India shouldn't be on the list?TheBigBean said:
This isn't the best advert for the asylum system. Assuming it is Iraqi Kurds that make up the majority of Iraqi applications, then together with Albanians and Indians, that's a lot of people unlikely to be granted asylum.rjsterry said:
Absolutely. Top 5 countries of origin for UK applications are:wallace_and_gromit said:
I think there is a mutual pact between the Tories and Labour to not mention "cause and effect" in this area given the Blair regime's penchant for "intervention" in certain parts of the world.Jezyboy said:
It's very on brand for the party of personal responsibility to try and wipe our hands of it though.pblakeney said:Maybe if we hadn't contributed just so much to make some places in the world so shitty than this wouldn't be happening.
Albania, Afghanistan (invaded then ran away), Iran (instigated a coup to overthrow the government because they had nationalised their oil industry), India (some history), and Iraq (invaded).
I don't think we invaded Albania,
Oh and there's Libya, too.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Firstly what is the problem you want to solve? I would suggest 1. People drowning in the Channel and funding organised crime in the process. 2. Failing to organise accommodation for pending applicants. 1 is a result of removing all other routes. 2 is well documented a deliberate policy choice to create a crisis - choose something else.Stevo_666 said:
Id say the latter is more likely to happen first.rjsterry said:
You can wish for what you like but until we withdraw from the treaty those are our obligations. We have agreed to deal with all applications on a case by case basis. The numbers are down to how much conflict there is and what links we have with those places.Stevo_666 said:
It should be our choice as to how many we accept.rjsterry said:
Explain why you think France, which already accepts significantly more applications than the UK, should take our share on top.Stevo_666 said:
Sounds like something needs to change then, as I've already said.wallace_and_gromit said:
We don’t have the right to return them to France.Stevo_666 said:
It's not perfect but clearly better than indefinite leave to remain. If we want to avoid the problems you describe in your first paragraph, then we should refuse them permission to stay up front. After all, they will be safe back in France.wallace_and_gromit said:
Problem with this as a concept is that it can and does take a very long time for the danger to cease. How long do you think it will be it to be safe to return to Afghanistan, Syria etc?Stevo_666 said:
I think people would be more accepting if those granted asylum were returned to their country of origin once the danger has ceased.rjsterry said:
We do. It's not optional without withdrawing from the treaty. We've managed since the 1950s without claiming we can't cope. Under the treaty we are obliged to consider all applications. Obviously not all are granted.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure, but it would definitely be worth revisiting this from time to time to time to take into account current circumstances. The other question is how many are legitimate and can demonstrate it.wallace_and_gromit said:
Don't we have international treaty commitments to take in every legitimate asylum seeker?Stevo_666 said:
It really depends on whether you think we should be taking in more asylum seekers.rjsterry said:
Sure, nothing is endless, but this is well within the capabilities of a halfway competent administration including the current one if they chose to. It's a deliberate choice to create a crisis.Stevo_666 said:
However much you want to blame the Tories, there is still a limited supply of the relevant resources.rjsterry said:
Scarce resources my censored . It's a deliberately created problem. I'll take the whole thing seriously when the HO stop handing out record numbers of visas. They know they need the immigration to bolster the GDP figures and keep the labour shortage vaguely under control. This is not charity but basic obligations.Stevo_666 said:
As mentioned above, more demands on scarce resources whether they be housing, support services, funding etc. It may not seem like a massive thing in the short term, but this is going to continue for the foreseeable future and it all mounts up. Charity begins at home, as they say.rjsterry said:
What issues is it causing? As opposed to the manufactured issues resulting from deliberately slowing the processing of applications down and deliberately not finding alternatives to block booking hotels?Stevo_666 said:
Fair question as I've asked it to others. Hard to put a number on it without all the facts and bit of time, but my view is the answer should be very low given the issues that it is currently causing. It is clear that we are struggling to deal with the volumes of people so maybe better to have a moratorium for a while? (How we might do that is another question)Jezyboy said:
What do you think it should be.Stevo_666 said:
So what do you think that limit should be?tailwindhome said:
Logically there has to be a limit that's greater than zero but less than everyone in the world.Stevo_666 said:
One question that should be enforced asked is how many asylum seekers should we accept? Logically there has to be a limit. What do you think?tailwindhome said:Key to understanding the Tory approach is to realise that the policy objective that no one is granted asylum in the UK.
Once you understand that, everything they do makes sense
Agreed 👍
I'd have thought the last decade was a lesson in the pointlessness of setting numbers for such things.
One thing is clear, if people are willing to give everything they have for a potentially lethal boat trip, I don't think we are realistically going persuade many to not attempt to claim asylum in this country. Suggesting we can't cope when a country that experienced a massive earthquake less than a year ago handles many times the number of refugees is just a bit sh*t.
I'm still not clear what circumstances you think there are - new circumstances that haven't been around for the last couple of decades - that mean we are unable to meet our obligations. What has changed?
Clearly it's not 'too much immigration' or we would have cut right back on the numbers of visas issued. Those immigrants tend towards higher earning, younger, healthier people. If public services are overstretched it's more likely to be the increasingly aged and infirm UK-born majority that are overusing and not putting enough in.
And in those long periods of time, folk put down roots, get jobs, put kids into school etc. Uprooting folk in those circumstances just to appease those on the Farage wing of society feels like a move to favour the wrong side of the argument. You don’t have to be a particularly lefty lawyer to see that sending a child “back” with one or more parent to a country where they’ve never been or only been as a baby etc. is firmly in the “really bad idea” category.
And we can’t refuse valid claims.
They are only in France because we have removed all other routes to applying for asylum.
It's up to France whether to let them stay or send them back depending on the circumstances. Where does it say France is OK to pass them over to another country when they are already safe in France?
It's nothing to do with France (or any other country that happens to be on a land route to the UK) and not their responsibility to deal with people applying for asylum in the UK. People can apply for asylum in whichever country they choose. Absolutely no requirement for this fictional first safe country idea. France deals with all the people who apply for asylum in France.
But you know all that.
Which do you think will happen first: rejoin the EU or withdraw from the the Refugee Convention 🙂.
However I still don't see anyone on here proposing any solution other than 'let them all in, the more the merrier'. Apart from making our more liberally minded posters feel virtuous, what does it do for the UK?
Have already answered the second point. More generally young people willing to work is a good thing. We have 2.8million unable to work because of long term sickness. That gap needs filling.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yeah RJS is absolutely right. By removing all legal routes the Tories are effectively creating demand for illegal, ie run by gangs, routes.
If they believe their own hype that Britain is a worthy place to live in, why wouldn’t people want to come over?
So which is it?
Tories have been pro smuggling for a while > see their views on goods coming in and out over the EU border.0 -
Here's the other side in the Telegraphrick_chasey said:
If they believe their own hype that Britain is a worthy place to live in, why wouldn’t people want to come over?
So which is it?0 -
Essentially what pangolin said, but would add more direct links (e.g. being employed by the British Army as a translator).wallace_and_gromit said:
Thanks. I was right to be concerned I was being dim!pangolin said:
I read it as interventions increases the number of people who want/are forced to leave their countries.wallace_and_gromit said:
I may be being dim here, but my understanding is that the UK's interventions circa 10-20 years ago have increased the number of displaced people, but that the overwhelming reason for those looking to come to the UK are:rjsterry said:Dimwits asking why people are applying to the UK rather than France only need to look back 20 years or so.
1 - Language
2 - No ID cards
3 - Family here already
You seem to be suggesting - apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick - that people are coming to the UK rather than France as some sort of payback for UK causing them to leave their home country in the first place. I guess there may be a few who are so motivated, but I can't see this being a largescale reason for risking the Channel crossing on a lilo etc.
Once they have left, the options for choosing the UK could well be one of the 3 you list.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Tbf, I’d agree with that point.
Not for the reasons they give though, I just think everyone should travel while young if they can.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Good news at last for Braverman as the first of many immigrants start to gather to fly off to Africa.2
