Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Rorschach]

Why? I welcome our obligation to take refugees and asylum seekers. But why take economic migrants who just fancy coming here? Prioritising those just arriving, over those in need, just means we get the most forceful. It should be a needs-based system, meaning we should only take people processed through UN aid camps.

Most of these people are genuine asylum seekers as demonstrated by the results. By all accounts the Home Office process for assessing asylum claims is very tough and even then the vast majority of those seeking refugee status are found to have valid claims. Almost two-thirds granted initially, and then half of those who appeal the decision in case of refusal. Be under no illusion, these are people in desperate need and should be given a safe way to make their application.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

You don't genuinely believe that would happen, surely?

Presumably you support @Baleforce's idea above, ferry them safely from France so they can be processed safely on our side instead?

I do think that would happen, as it happened in Australia.

No I don't agree with the Baleforce idea at all. It is either stupid or deliberately provocative to the over worked immigration system. The Liberal lawyers with tax payer money would make more and more claims to stay and ypu would not get rid of the rejected claimants and you would encourage more and more and more as you full well know.

If they were genuine asylum seekers they would claim in the first safe country they got to. But you know all this and the frankly stupid suggestions you are making you are doing so because you want to see the governments support particularly in the North dissappear. I don't want them in power either, but your proposals would just give rise to an extremist fringe and I would not want that. Just a government that enforces the law.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Australia turn back boats "where it is safe to do so" (how large a pinch of salt might be needed with that statement I do not know).
In the case of the Channel, I am not sure that turning back boats to (once again) attempt to navigate the world's busiest shipping lanes could be considered as safe.

And if it were attempted couldn't those in the boats claim asylum once in English waters anyway?

It would be perfectly safe to turn them back, a few Liberal lawyers with legal aid will moan a bit. But after a couple of weeks on a zero tolerance approach they would stop trying and then you would have no more instances of people crossing the Channel. As devastating as that might be to the likes of you and some of the others in this thread who clearly don't care about the life's of people but trying to political point score and undermine law and order and society in the UK.

 

[Lilbaz]

Meanwhile in Sweden...

 

[Glenda's Legs]

It would be perfectly safe to turn them back, a few Liberal lawyers with legal aid will moan a bit. But after a couple of weeks on a zero tolerance approach they would stop trying and then you would have no more instances of people crossing the Channel. As devastating as that might be to the likes of you and some of the others in this thread who clearly don't care about the life's of people but trying to political point score and undermine law and order and society in the UK.

No one here wants lives to be lost and for you to suggest that I or anyone else does not care about the lives of these people and/or that we have blood on our hands is, quite frankly, despicable.
You appear to be OK with risking lives now by turning these totally inadequate and unsafe vessels back whence they came, in order to stop future crossings. I would rather we kept sight that these are people, not objects to be shuttled back and forth, and that the politicians worked in unison to find a better solution and that law enforcement concentrated on finding those responsible for or involved in the people-smuggling operations, although granted, that is a monumental task. (And yet arrests were made very swiftly after yesterday's tragedy).
As for undermining law and order in the UK, I don't see how that is happening? The Geneva Convention on Refugees, to which we are a signatory is, as far as I am aware, enshrined in UK law, so what laws are being undermined?

 

[SpurMeUp]

I was reading post-Brexit without the Dublin Convention there are no legal means to return them to the EU.

There is no doubt, being in the EU helped the UK deal with this issue. France doesn’t have to play ball with us, and we lose the joined up thinking and collaboration.

It is quite remarkable what the EU did - paying Turkey to be a buffer and look after displaced people before they can get to Europe. Without this the waves of people would be far more dramatic. The sentiment in Turkey is changing however, the native population are feeling less accommodating. There is real anti-immigrant sentiment building. We have no idea here. Turkey have taken in humongous numbers of imigrants. Just Syrian refugees number 3.6m in Turkey. No doubt there are many more from other nations too. Without the EU paying Turkey you'd imagine there would be 3 or 4 times the number of people trying to cross the channel.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

No one here wants lives to be lost and for you to suggest that I or anyone else does not care about the lives of these people and/or that we have blood on our hands is, quite frankly, despicable.

It is your views that are quite frankly despicable and we have no one in this country or rather very few who are prepared to stand up and say it 8n Frank and clear language that people if I can even call you that, because people are humans and you ate showing no humanity what so ever. To protect more lives you have to take a strong stance at the beginning unfortunately we have a very weak leader and the leader of the opposition who seems equally weak and hates the working class.

 

[Rorschach]

There is no doubt, being in the EU helped the UK deal with this issue. France doesn’t have to play ball with us, and we lose the joined up thinking and collaboration.

It is quite remarkable what the EU did - paying Turkey to be a buffer and look after displaced people before they can get to Europe. Without this the waves of people would far more dramatic. The sentiment in Turkey is changing however, and the native population are feeling less accommodating. There is real anti-immigrant sentiment building. We have no idea here. Turkey must have taken in humongous numbers. Just Syrian refugees are numbered at 3.6m in Turkey. No doubt there are many more nations represented.

France are being les dingdongs in their own way, but understandably there is little motivation to help the UK much with this issue considering what's gone on the last 5 years. The problem is one that can only be solved through cooperation with France but harmonious international relations with an EU member is not something that is high on the agenda for now. And people will die as a result. Tragic and preventable.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait till climate migration kicks into full gear. A few dinghies in the channel are nothing.

 

[Gutter Boy]

How long before Boris goes full 'build the wall'. And knowing him he'd probably be thinking literally

 

[Seedy Ron]

I do think that would happen, as it happened in Australia.

According to this, between 2013 and 2018, the Australians turned back 33 vessels and 810 people. There have been 47000 attempted crossings of the Channel this year. The blockade's going to have to be pretty spectacular, in the busiest stretch of water on Earth. It'll also have to stretch from Northern France up to Belgium and Holland, because they'll just move their launch points of course.

No I don't agree with the Baleforce idea at all. It is either stupid or deliberately provocative to the over worked immigration system.

Huh? I thought you were all about the people? His idea would remove the traffickers business instantly, and make sure no one drowns en route. I thought that's what you cared about?

If they were genuine asylum seekers they would claim in the first safe country they got to.

Hmm, I fear the mask may be on the squiff a bit here. Brotherhood of man remember.

you are doing so because you want to see the governments support particularly in the North dissappear.

I want whoever is the government to be able to work with other governments, rather than just blame each other, to produce a proper solution to the problem. Which is what they're there for. Just a shame about the dearth of talent at Westminster.

I don't want them in power either

TBH you sound like one of the Home Secretary's speeches (blame the lawyers, blame the French, blame the church), so you probably should reconsider your support.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait till climate migration kicks into full gear. A few dingys in the channel is nothing.

Ha, they'll never get past the flotilla. Plus it'll be further once the water rises.

 

[Rorschach]

Ha, they'll never get past the flotilla. Plus it'll be further once the water rises.

Ironically because the icebergs melted. We'll need to come up with a new idiom to replace iceberg tips.

 

[markysimmo]

France being sulky France as usual

France's interior minister has cancelled talks with UK Home Secretary Priti Patel after Prime Minister Boris Johnson called on France to take back migrants who crossed the channel.

In an escalation of the political crisis after the deaths of 27 people in the Channel, Gérald Darmanin said France was disappointed by the plan.

"Making it public made it even worse."

Mr Johnson set out five steps in his letter to President Emmanuel Macron to avoid a repeat of Wednesday's tragedy.

 

[glasgowspur]

Meanwhile in Sweden...

Am i correct in understanding that they don't object to the budget, just the people that negotiated some of it?

 

[richie_spur]

France being sulky France as usual

France's interior minister has cancelled talks with UK Home Secretary Priti Patel after Prime Minister Boris Johnson called on France to take back migrants who crossed the channel.

In an escalation of the political crisis after the deaths of 27 people in the Channel, Gérald Darmanin said France was disappointed by the plan.

"Making it public made it even worse."

Mr Johnson set out five steps in his letter to President Emmanuel Macron to avoid a repeat of Wednesday's tragedy.

The letter was reasonable and read as "let's work together to sort this out". In retaliation the French revoked an invitation to talks.

Seems a perfectly balanced and acceptable way to treat friends and neighbours, or maybe not...

 

[Lilbaz]

Am i correct in understanding that they don't object to the budget, just the people that negotiated some of it?

No idea. I'm not really an expert on swedish politics.

 

[glasgowspur]

No idea. I'm not really an expert on swedish politics.

Pft!

 

[Rorschach]

The letter was reasonable and read as "let's work together to sort this out". In retaliation the French revoked an invitation to talks.

Seems a perfectly balanced and acceptable way to treat friends and neighbours, or maybe not...

It read more like 'let's keep everyone in France' to be more accurate.

 

[Lilbaz]

Pft!

Did watch a good documentary a while back about the rise of the far right in sweden though. They had a lot of somalian immigrants who started having gang wars. Instead of using guns, they could buy grenades from eastern europe for $10. This obviously got messy.
The government put an embargo on the swedish press from reporting on the violence as they thought it would make the far right stronger.
All a bit messed up.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

France are being les dingdongs in their own way, but understandably there is little motivation to help the UK much with this issue considering what's gone on the last 5 years. The problem is one that can only be solved through cooperation with France but harmonious international relations with an EU member is not something that is high on the agenda for now. And people will die as a result. Tragic and preventable.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Wait till climate migration kicks into full gear. A few dinghies in the channel are nothing.

What has happened in the last 5 years? You still harping on over brexit. You guys really have chips on your shoulders.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

It read more like 'let's keep everyone in France' to be more accurate.

You mean a perfectly safe place to claim asylum?

The UK has always said it would accept its fair share of asylum seekers but doing so from Red Cross camps stops the cruel people trafficking trade.