No. I was in Old Bexley and Sidcup and the Conservative vote is generally holding up with a few undecideds. James Brokenshire was remembered with affection and there was little move to Labour.
I would expect a solid Conservative hold with maybe a slight fall in the Tory majority but with RefUK perhaps taking 3rd. It is a strong Leave seat unlike Chesham and Amersham and the Labour by election machine is also much weaker than Labour's
Do you concede the possibility some disillusioned Conservatives might support Richard Tice as a protest vote while others might simply abstain?
The net effect would be a fall in the Conservative Party vote and vote share to something akin to @Gary_Burton's prediction? Turnout in the constituency at general elections is generally 70% - I suspect the by-election turnout will be substantially lower.
Difficult one. The improbable Labour victory requires considerable Tory-Reform switching. While losing Heath’s old seat would be seismic, in some ways I’d prefer the sight of Tice’s smug grin being wiped off his face by the knowledge that he’d just lost his deposit and was even more of a loser than his erstwhile mucker, Farage. Have to say I think the latter is more probable than the former.
On that subject, the late PM of Sweden even falls short of the shortest ever tenure of the office of First Lord of the Treasury: the Earl of Bath, 10th-12th February 1746.
It was said of Bath that he led 'the most wise and honest of all administrations, the minister having ... never transacted one rash thing; and, what is more marvellous, left as much money in the T[reasur]y as he found in it.'
It was said of Chernenko (by Russian friends) that his being dead for his entire premiership was no hinderance and perhaps of some advantage.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
For this to be workable we first need to identify a country or territory prepared to host our asylum processing centre.
Geniune question: is there any evidence any country will do that?
No. A government wallah was prevaricating and evading at length only today on this very question, IIRC on WatO.
More evidence they can't be bothered - because it's too much like hard work, too costly, or most likely both - if true.
The Falkland Islands are on the other side of the world, remote and inescapable, and have oodles of space in which to build facilities (the size of Northern Ireland with the population of a small market town.)
It'd cost a fortune, but it's eminently doable. The Government just doesn't want to.
The Falklands are a bit too remote, and have too few people to staff a centre, particularly when skills are considered.
One of the brownwater islands in the Thames Estuary would probably be better.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Exactly.
If processing were handled in Rwanda then they'd be eager to actually get the case resolved, instead of the current situation.
BBC: Britain could face shortage of wine and spirits at Christmas, a drinks trade body has warned.
In a letter to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) said rising costs and supply chain chaos have held up deliveries.
Imports were now taking up to five times longer than a year ago, it said. The letter was co-signed by 49 firms, including Pernod Ricard, Moët Hennessy and the Wine Society.
It said the sector has been badly affected by the HGV driver shortage crisis, which the industry has blamed on factors including Covid and Brexit.
LOL! Is this going to end up like the imaginary Turkey shortage?
My local Turkey farm has only 50% of the normal seasonal turkey stock because of Labour shortage.
Why do sceptics think so many reputable wine companies signed that letter?
I’ve ordered my turkey from the butcher as per normal. That’s why I’m sceptical, that and the full shelves in the supermarkets and the full petrol stations.
That paper reminds me of being at running club on a glorious Sunday morning at 9am, running up a steep hill and hearing the ardent Remainer (who bored even those who had voted Remain) moaning about some Brexit act. It just cannot help itself.
There is only one thing more tragic than reading or referring to "the New European", and that is reposting a "New European" front page on a politicalbetting website
There was probably a New Jacobite news-paper that had a circulation of 93 in 1756. That's the equivalent
I thought I would look up the circulation of the New European, however its not listed on the main Wikipediae newspaper circulation page, so I looked up its own Wikipedia page, and it states, about 20,000 paper and online combined.
But I do like this comment:
'Vice News described The New European as a newspaper for the "sore loser" that is "not united by a love for Europe, but rather a disdain for the 52%".'
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Nonetheless, the Government has the ability to set this issue to rights. It commands a majority in Parliament. The law is what Parliament says it is. Pass a law declaring all boat arrivals illegal and stating that they should be sent away to a holding facility offshore, insert a clause making the legislation superior to any other piece of legislation that could be used to try to hamper the process, and then all that need be done is to prove that a boat arrival is a boat arrival. Throw sufficient money at patrolling the coast then you have your evidence, and the immigration lawyers are left with no recourse at all.
Ministers aren't fixing the problem because they don't want to.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
No they aren't. Let us not exaggerate. The annual death rate for Illegal Channel crossers, after today, is about 0.1%.
I could only recall one other incident like this and it's interesting that both happened quite close to the coast.
I don't think that the death rate is much higher, but I reckon it's a fair bit higher than 0.1%.
There's nobody on this board who hates Johnson more than I do.
But for the New European to post that he's having a bad day is pretty much the equivalent of the Morning Star saying that we should nationalise all industry and shoot the Jews.
And for much the same reason.
BiB - that's a highly contentious statement. I suspect the competition is pretty stiff.
I'm content with it.
I hate Boris more than you do!
Fuck business Boris!
There is nothing that would persuade me to fuck Boris.
Nor do I need to as his government screws me every day.
BBC: Britain could face shortage of wine and spirits at Christmas, a drinks trade body has warned.
In a letter to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) said rising costs and supply chain chaos have held up deliveries.
Imports were now taking up to five times longer than a year ago, it said. The letter was co-signed by 49 firms, including Pernod Ricard, Moët Hennessy and the Wine Society.
It said the sector has been badly affected by the HGV driver shortage crisis, which the industry has blamed on factors including Covid and Brexit.
LOL! Is this going to end up like the imaginary Turkey shortage?
My local Turkey farm has only 50% of the normal seasonal turkey stock because of Labour shortage.
Why do sceptics think so many reputable wine companies signed that letter?
That paper reminds me of being at running club on a glorious Sunday morning at 9am, running up a steep hill and hearing the ardent Remainer (who bored even those who had voted Remain) moaning about some Brexit act. It just cannot help itself.
There is only one thing more tragic than reading or referring to "the New European", and that is reposting a "New European" front page on a politicalbetting website
There was probably a New Jacobite news-paper that had a circulation of 93 in 1756. That's the equivalent
Don't be such a party-pooper, it cheers some of up! Yes, we know it's got a circulation of seven and has no relevance in the real world but it still made me smile.
A colleague of mine once unironically described it as his favourite newspaper. It probably costs more now so I will have to check if he is still a subscriber.
It cannot be as much fun as the time I found a copy of the socialist worker (or something of that nature) on a train.
BBC: Britain could face shortage of wine and spirits at Christmas, a drinks trade body has warned.
In a letter to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) said rising costs and supply chain chaos have held up deliveries.
Imports were now taking up to five times longer than a year ago, it said. The letter was co-signed by 49 firms, including Pernod Ricard, Moët Hennessy and the Wine Society.
It said the sector has been badly affected by the HGV driver shortage crisis, which the industry has blamed on factors including Covid and Brexit.
LOL! Is this going to end up like the imaginary Turkey shortage?
My local Turkey farm has only 50% of the normal seasonal turkey stock because of Labour shortage.
Why do sceptics think so many reputable wine companies signed that letter?
I don't know why the wine company's, have singed a letter, predicting shortages, that might lead to panic buying, of the product that they make money selling.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Yes, but the delays are mostly unnecessary. Medical report needed? Report to Hut A at 0830. Translator needed? Here he is. Psychological report? Hut B at 1100. Genetic testing to prove familial connection, results by tomorrow.
It wouldn't be cheap, but funding rapid assessments, like other aspects of law, would be money well spent.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Exactly.
If processing were handled in Rwanda then they'd be eager to actually get the case resolved, instead of the current situation.
Yes, the whole point of a 3rd country is that it has to be intrinsically less desirable, and less liable to get agitprop lefty human rights lawyers zipping in to make a name, so you give the migrants unjustified hope. We have to crush the hope
This is deeply harsh, but then, imposing mass illegal immigration on the British people is harsh, and it is even harsher on those who go through the many many legal hoops of LEGAL immigration - as my brilliant, smart, hardworking, honest Thai cleaner Nok is doing - and it has taken her years, and she is just now waiting for her final test, and citizenship.
Even harsher than all of that is dying in a Channel, by falling off a dinghy, age 2
Ministers aren't fixing the problem because they don't want to.
They are not intellectually capable.
Many of the people on this thread whining about what a shit job this government are doing voted for these fukwits, but haven't drawn the necessary conclusion yet...
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Nonetheless, the Government has the ability to set this issue to rights. It commands a majority in Parliament. The law is what Parliament says it is. Pass a law declaring all boat arrivals illegal and stating that they should be sent away to a holding facility offshore, insert a clause making the legislation superior to any other piece of legislation that could be used to try to hamper the process, and then all that need be done is to prove that a boat arrival is a boat arrival. Throw sufficient money at patrolling the coast then you have your evidence, and the immigration lawyers are left with no recourse at all.
Ministers aren't fixing the problem because they don't want to.
The refugee groups are as much to blame. They effectively signal that anyone or everyone will be allowed in if a means to get to the UK is found. And their constant ways to make sure anyone - even if it is not justified - is granted asylum undermines public trust.
Anyway, I have a better solution. Send them to Primrose Hill and make all the nice upper middle class people who live in the big houses and who constantly call on us to let them in take, mmmm, 2 per room of their house.
Shows how much I was paying attention - I'd looked at the voting figures, but it wasn't until now I'd actually paid attention to a map and realised Old Bexley and Sidcup is in London.
That paper reminds me of being at running club on a glorious Sunday morning at 9am, running up a steep hill and hearing the ardent Remainer (who bored even those who had voted Remain) moaning about some Brexit act. It just cannot help itself.
There is only one thing more tragic than reading or referring to "the New European", and that is reposting a "New European" front page on a politicalbetting website
There was probably a New Jacobite news-paper that had a circulation of 93 in 1756. That's the equivalent
I thought I would look up the circulation of the New European, however its not listed on the main Wikipediae newspaper circulation page, so I looked up its own Wikipedia page, and it states, about 20,000 paper and online combined.
But I do like this comment:
'Vice News described The New European as a newspaper for the "sore loser" that is "not united by a love for Europe, but rather a disdain for the 52%".'
Vice News sounds like a much more interesting newspaper
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
For this to be workable we first need to identify a country or territory prepared to host our asylum processing centre.
Geniune question: is there any evidence any country will do that?
No. A government wallah was prevaricating and evading at length only today on this very question, IIRC on WatO.
More evidence they can't be bothered - because it's too much like hard work, too costly, or most likely both - if true.
The Falkland Islands are on the other side of the world, remote and inescapable, and have oodles of space in which to build facilities (the size of Northern Ireland with the population of a small market town.)
It'd cost a fortune, but it's eminently doable. The Government just doesn't want to.
The Falklands are a bit too remote, and have too few people to staff a centre, particularly when skills are considered.
One of the brownwater islands in the Thames Estuary would probably be better.
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
This is the relevant part of the article
A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".
Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard
Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?
397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration) to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of “immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered” the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
What that *seems* to say to me is that if you pick up some migrants at sea, and deliver them to an "immigration control area" then you "may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law"
Which seems a sensible way of dealing with this - pick up some migrants in a lifesaving situation, OK. If you put them on a random beach, not OK. If you hand them over to the immigration types, OK.
Funny that. When you look at the facts it’s never quite what the fulminators claim
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
For this to be workable we first need to identify a country or territory prepared to host our asylum processing centre.
Geniune question: is there any evidence any country will do that?
No. A government wallah was prevaricating and evading at length only today on this very question, IIRC on WatO.
More evidence they can't be bothered - because it's too much like hard work, too costly, or most likely both - if true.
The Falkland Islands are on the other side of the world, remote and inescapable, and have oodles of space in which to build facilities (the size of Northern Ireland with the population of a small market town.)
It'd cost a fortune, but it's eminently doable. The Government just doesn't want to.
The Falklands are a bit too remote, and have too few people to staff a centre, particularly when skills are considered.
One of the brownwater islands in the Thames Estuary would probably be better.
Pay people enough and you'll find the staff willing to go and live out there for a while.
Remote offshoring would have visible deterrent value, i.e. it would be a demonstration that people arriving in dinghies will end up further away from Britain than when they started and will never be allowed back again. Make the situation hopeless for the first few thousand arrivals and those who would have come afterwards will learn not to risk their lives or waste their money trying.
You then find host countries willing to take the people already at the offshoring centre in exchange for a fat bung, and mothball it after a couple of years. Case closed.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
For this to be workable we first need to identify a country or territory prepared to host our asylum processing centre.
Geniune question: is there any evidence any country will do that?
No. A government wallah was prevaricating and evading at length only today on this very question, IIRC on WatO.
More evidence they can't be bothered - because it's too much like hard work, too costly, or most likely both - if true.
The Falkland Islands are on the other side of the world, remote and inescapable, and have oodles of space in which to build facilities (the size of Northern Ireland with the population of a small market town.)
It'd cost a fortune, but it's eminently doable. The Government just doesn't want to.
The Falklands are a bit too remote, and have too few people to staff a centre, particularly when skills are considered.
One of the brownwater islands in the Thames Estuary would probably be better.
Napoleon was "processed" on St Helena.
1 man guard by 4 frigates. It would be rather expensive to do the same for 25 000 per year!
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
For this to be workable we first need to identify a country or territory prepared to host our asylum processing centre.
Geniune question: is there any evidence any country will do that?
No. A government wallah was prevaricating and evading at length only today on this very question, IIRC on WatO.
More evidence they can't be bothered - because it's too much like hard work, too costly, or most likely both - if true.
The Falkland Islands are on the other side of the world, remote and inescapable, and have oodles of space in which to build facilities (the size of Northern Ireland with the population of a small market town.)
It'd cost a fortune, but it's eminently doable. The Government just doesn't want to.
The Falklands are a bit too remote, and have too few people to staff a centre, particularly when skills are considered.
One of the brownwater islands in the Thames Estuary would probably be better.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Yes, but the delays are mostly unnecessary. Medical report needed? Report to Hut A at 0830. Translator needed? Here he is. Psychological report? Hut B at 1100. Genetic testing to prove familial connection, results by tomorrow.
It wouldn't be cheap, but funding rapid assessments, like other aspects of law, would be money well spent.
That's after you get past the 1000 years of court cases trying to stop any speed up of the process.
This from the European Journal of International Law explains the RNLI exemption
These proposed changes sit within a broader context of certain European states bringing criminal suits against those assisting refugees and migrants at sea. In Greece, police have launched criminal cases against non-governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in facilitating foreigner entry into Greece and investigating abuses of migrants by Greek authorities. In Italy, prosecutors have brought criminal charges against NGOs and individuals in rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea. Cusumano and Villa survey the Italian proceedings against NGOs in what they describe as the “criminalization of sea rescue NGOs in Italy.” Similar cases have also been brought in Malta.
The UK context, even with the proposed changes, is distinct given an existing exception to 25A(1) within the Immigration Act. Section 25(A)(3) notes that Subsection (1) “does not apply to anything done by a person acting on behalf of an organization which a) aims to assist asylum-seekers and b) does not charge for its services”. This caveat strongly suggests that organizations like the RNLI would not be caught up in the proposed changes. A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
Significantly, however, the change to the Immigration Act seems to create novel criminal liability for private vessels – like merchant, fishing or pleasure crafts – involved in rescues. Those not acting on behalf of an organization and voluntarily providing assistance could now face criminal liability as a result of these changes. Further, the proposed changes could ease prosecutions in the controversial and recently scrapped ‘hand-on-tiller’ cases, in which ‘pilot-migrants’ are charged with human smuggling for voluntarily piloting small boats across the channel. While statistics on rescues by private vessels in UK territorial waters are not readily available, globally, of the 152, 343 individuals rescued at sea in 2015, 20, 000 were aided by NGOs and 16, 000 by merchant ships.
Explanatory notes and tweets do not make law.
The law is what is written as law. And so far we only have 'strongly suggest'. That is not 'definitely not'.
PS And does the RNLI 'aim to assist asylum-seekers'? Is that in its charitable aims? It doesn't assist asylum-seekers coming in on lorries, for instance. If it doesn't then it is not covered.
While I am not a lawyer and I could be wrong, I am not sure that's correct. When judges are interpreting the law, AIUI they are entitled to use previous statements about the intent of the law in forming their judgements.
However, it would be rather better if the ambiguity was dropped altogether so there need be no question of it. Particularly since some of our judges are extremely stupid.
I agree - I'm not sure I'm correct - but the ambiguity should have gone long ago. Prosecuting the RNLI will go down about as well as compulsory electrocution of the nation's kittens and puppies.
This is the relevant part of the article
A tweet by the Home Office that this change “doesn’t apply to organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI helping those in distress at sea” and the Government’s explanatory note of the Bill, noting that:
“[i]t remains the case that this offence does not apply to persons acting on behalf of an organisation which aims to assist asylum seekers and does not charge for its services” (para 402)
reinforce this point. Other NGOs involved in search and rescue may be similarly protected by this provision.
And the key word in this opinion piece is "may".
Or - alternative idea - the Home Secretary could have the bill amended to remove it as an issue. Why do you think it is that she isn't...?
Because it isn't as there is an explanatory note in the bill re the RNLI and Coastguard
Here's the actual bill Big_G, where's the explanatory note?
397 Subsection 4 amends section 25 of the 1971 Act, (criminal offence of assisting unlawful immigration) to include arrival in the UK as part of the definition of “immigration law”. The meaning of “immigration law” as provided in current section 25(2) means a law which controls non-UK nationals’ entitlement to enter the state, transit across the state, or be in the state. This limits the application of section 25 in practice. As noted regarding the offence of entry without leave, migrants who are intercepted at sea and are brought into an immigration control area may not have “entered” the UK unlawfully and so a person facilitating their journey may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law for that offence. This amendment will ensure that the offence of facilitation also applies to those assisting persons to arrive in the UK without a valid entry clearance.
What that *seems* to say to me is that if you pick up some migrants at sea, and deliver them to an "immigration control area" then you "may not be charged with assisting a breach of immigration law"
Which seems a sensible way of dealing with this - pick up some migrants in a lifesaving situation, OK. If you put them on a random beach, not OK. If you hand them over to the immigration types, OK.
Funny that. When you look at the facts it’s never quite what the fulminators claim
As @TSE pointed out, what happens to the ones who get picked up and necessarily delivered to a hospital?
The bigger point is that the Nationality and Borders Bill is tinkering at the edges. No one seriously thinks it's going to make a blind bit of difference to the overall problem, which remains as intractible as ever.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Yes, but the delays are mostly unnecessary. Medical report needed? Report to Hut A at 0830. Translator needed? Here he is. Psychological report? Hut B at 1100. Genetic testing to prove familial connection, results by tomorrow.
It wouldn't be cheap, but funding rapid assessments, like other aspects of law, would be money well spent.
That's after you get past the 1000 years of court cases trying to stop any speed up of the process.
The same laws and process would apply offshore, plus the rather obvious flaw that no other country wants to be our dumping ground.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
I have a much better idea.
A bunch of really enthusiastic people smugglers show up. With a couple of big ships. We will take you to another European country they say.
They land the refugees by night..
The next morning the refugees realise they are in Ceuta. But hey...
BBC: Britain could face shortage of wine and spirits at Christmas, a drinks trade body has warned.
In a letter to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) said rising costs and supply chain chaos have held up deliveries.
Imports were now taking up to five times longer than a year ago, it said. The letter was co-signed by 49 firms, including Pernod Ricard, Moët Hennessy and the Wine Society.
It said the sector has been badly affected by the HGV driver shortage crisis, which the industry has blamed on factors including Covid and Brexit.
Yes, but the delays are mostly unnecessary. Medical report needed? Report to Hut A at 0830. Translator needed? Here he is. Psychological report? Hut B at 1100. Genetic testing to prove familial connection, results by tomorrow.
It wouldn't be cheap, but funding rapid assessments, like other aspects of law, would be money well spent.
Agreed. The whole operation is being run on the cheap and it's a false economy.
I'm not sure that anyone can really stop this. The French? Realistically they can't seal the entire coastline (even if they did accept British troops on indefinite mission). The British? Likewise. The refugees? They're taking a risk in the hope of a good life - are we sure we would make different choices? The smugglers? If they collectively retired, yes, but if a situation is created where X is desperate to get to Y, there will always be people offering to do it for £££s.
We could help, by offering a fast (cf. above) legal route for people who can prove a UK connection or skills that we badly need - that would reduce the flow, though not stop it. And yes, the third country option ought to be possible for others if we throw enough money at it - sure, the country that agrees will demand a very high price, but there will be some figure that someone will accept. But I don't agree with Leon that that route should be slow and unpleasant - if that's the case, people will opt for the Channel route anyway.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Yes, but the delays are mostly unnecessary. Medical report needed? Report to Hut A at 0830. Translator needed? Here he is. Psychological report? Hut B at 1100. Genetic testing to prove familial connection, results by tomorrow.
It wouldn't be cheap, but funding rapid assessments, like other aspects of law, would be money well spent.
That's after you get past the 1000 years of court cases trying to stop any speed up of the process.
Why not draft the legislation clearly to prevent such challenges?
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
For this to be workable we first need to identify a country or territory prepared to host our asylum processing centre.
Geniune question: is there any evidence any country will do that?
No. A government wallah was prevaricating and evading at length only today on this very question, IIRC on WatO.
More evidence they can't be bothered - because it's too much like hard work, too costly, or most likely both - if true.
The Falkland Islands are on the other side of the world, remote and inescapable, and have oodles of space in which to build facilities (the size of Northern Ireland with the population of a small market town.)
It'd cost a fortune, but it's eminently doable. The Government just doesn't want to.
The Falklands are a bit too remote, and have too few people to staff a centre, particularly when skills are considered.
One of the brownwater islands in the Thames Estuary would probably be better.
BorisIsland ahoy!
In order for the staff to get there, could I suggest a Priti Peninsula?
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
The Rawanda idea, IIRC was that we would pay the Rawandan government to take them in. The migrants would have free run of the country.
Yes, but the delays are mostly unnecessary. Medical report needed? Report to Hut A at 0830. Translator needed? Here he is. Psychological report? Hut B at 1100. Genetic testing to prove familial connection, results by tomorrow.
It wouldn't be cheap, but funding rapid assessments, like other aspects of law, would be money well spent.
Agreed. The whole operation is being run on the cheap and it's a false economy.
I'm not sure that anyone can really stop this. The French? Realistically they can't seal the entire coastline (even if they did accept British troops on indefinite mission). The British? Likewise. The refugees? They're taking a risk in the hope of a good life - are we sure we would make different choices? The smugglers? If they collectively retired, yes, but if a situation is created where X is desperate to get to Y, there will always be people offering to do it for £££s.
We could help, by offering a fast (cf. above) legal route for people who can prove a UK connection or skills that we badly need - that would reduce the flow, though not stop it. And yes, the third country option ought to be possible for others if we throw enough money at it - sure, the country that agrees will demand a very high price, but there will be some figure that someone will accept. But I don't agree with Leon that that route should be slow and unpleasant - if that's the case, people will opt for the Channel route anyway.
Agreed. Last point especially is very salient.
Do we have any estimates regarding how many illegal immigrants are crossing the channel and not getting picked up? If the proportion is high, offshore processing will only encourage more attempts, not discourage.
BBC: Britain could face shortage of wine and spirits at Christmas, a drinks trade body has warned.
In a letter to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) said rising costs and supply chain chaos have held up deliveries.
Imports were now taking up to five times longer than a year ago, it said. The letter was co-signed by 49 firms, including Pernod Ricard, Moët Hennessy and the Wine Society.
It said the sector has been badly affected by the HGV driver shortage crisis, which the industry has blamed on factors including Covid and Brexit.
LOL! Is this going to end up like the imaginary Turkey shortage?
My local Turkey farm has only 50% of the normal seasonal turkey stock because of Labour shortage.
Why do sceptics think so many reputable wine companies signed that letter?
I don't know why the wine company's, have singed a letter, predicting shortages, that might lead to panic buying, of the product that they make money selling.
Panic buying would help them with extra supplies coming in - wine offers expandable consumption opportunities. But with so many of these suppliers really struggling the extra isn't there so how does it help?
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Yes, but the delays are mostly unnecessary. Medical report needed? Report to Hut A at 0830. Translator needed? Here he is. Psychological report? Hut B at 1100. Genetic testing to prove familial connection, results by tomorrow.
It wouldn't be cheap, but funding rapid assessments, like other aspects of law, would be money well spent.
That's after you get past the 1000 years of court cases trying to stop any speed up of the process.
Why not draft the legislation clearly to prevent such challenges?
You could try. But the point is that a massive chunk of the legal establishment believes that longer is better for asylum claims. Strangely, being lawyers who charge by the hour.....
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Yes, but the delays are mostly unnecessary. Medical report needed? Report to Hut A at 0830. Translator needed? Here he is. Psychological report? Hut B at 1100. Genetic testing to prove familial connection, results by tomorrow.
It wouldn't be cheap, but funding rapid assessments, like other aspects of law, would be money well spent.
Which is why the refugee groups share a large degree of the blame. If it was as you said, then my gut feel is that most people (myself included) would accept that as a fair process, But we all know there are refugee groups who are constantly telling migrants how to evade the system, increase their chances of success by "modifying" their story, campaigning against every single deportation etc.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
If we make it Albania they won't get on the plane. They'll find a smuggler to get them over on a boat which means the problem remains.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
If we make it Albania they won't get on the plane. They'll find a smuggler to get them over on a boat which means the problem remains.
Right, so they are not in fear of their lives, they just want to come to the UK. Which makes them not refugees.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
Put simply, I don't think Labour have ever exceeded poll swing by the amount required to gain OBS. They are not the LDs who can buck their overall popularity on a one off basis. Labour will exceed the near 7% swing polls indicate and the involvement of RefUK will boost that a bit more, but getting within 10-20% of the Tories would be in the good to excellent range.
Yes, but the delays are mostly unnecessary. Medical report needed? Report to Hut A at 0830. Translator needed? Here he is. Psychological report? Hut B at 1100. Genetic testing to prove familial connection, results by tomorrow.
It wouldn't be cheap, but funding rapid assessments, like other aspects of law, would be money well spent.
Agreed. The whole operation is being run on the cheap and it's a false economy.
I'm not sure that anyone can really stop this. The French? Realistically they can't seal the entire coastline (even if they did accept British troops on indefinite mission). The British? Likewise. The refugees? They're taking a risk in the hope of a good life - are we sure we would make different choices? The smugglers? If they collectively retired, yes, but if a situation is created where X is desperate to get to Y, there will always be people offering to do it for £££s.
We could help, by offering a fast (cf. above) legal route for people who can prove a UK connection or skills that we badly need - that would reduce the flow, though not stop it. And yes, the third country option ought to be possible for others if we throw enough money at it - sure, the country that agrees will demand a very high price, but there will be some figure that someone will accept. But I don't agree with Leon that that route should be slow and unpleasant - if that's the case, people will opt for the Channel route anyway.
Agreed. Last point especially is very salient.
Do we have any estimates regarding how many illegal immigrants are crossing the channel and not getting picked up? If the proportion is high, offshore processing will only encourage more attempts, not discourage.
Point with a third country is you don't have a choice. You arrive by boat? Shipped off to a third country, preferably via a RAF base where Military Law applies and you don't get the usuals trying to disrupt the process.
I'm afraid I can't see how the Tories lose this unless Labour wins with something like 35-40% with a massive reform/tory vote split. I can see the Tories dipping below 50% but I can't see them losing.
Something like
Con 48% Lab 31% Reform 14% Others 7%
turnout 40% (-30)
The last time Labour got over 30% of the vote in Old Bexley and Sidcup was 2001.
I highly doubt they would get 31%, a smaller rise from 23% in 2019 to 25-30% is more likely on current polls
Could it be a mistake though to compare general election days with choppy mid term by elections? The voters are quite aware they are not electing a government or Prime Minister, but they have spotlight to send a message about sleaze, immigration, a PM who clearly needs key to drinks cabinet at 12:30 each afternoon, without any threat of hurting their governments majority?
Rather like booing the manager but still loyal to the club?
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Yes, but the delays are mostly unnecessary. Medical report needed? Report to Hut A at 0830. Translator needed? Here he is. Psychological report? Hut B at 1100. Genetic testing to prove familial connection, results by tomorrow.
It wouldn't be cheap, but funding rapid assessments, like other aspects of law, would be money well spent.
Which is why the refugee groups share a large degree of the blame. If it was as you said, then my gut feel is that most people (myself included) would accept that as a fair process, But we all know there are refugee groups who are constantly telling migrants how to evade the system, increase their chances of success by "modifying" their story, campaigning against every single deportation etc.
Sure, but as they wouldn't be leaving the camp until the process was over, it's their own time that they would be wasting.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
If we make it Albania they won't get on the plane. They'll find a smuggler to get them over on a boat which means the problem remains.
Right, so they are not in fear of their lives, they just want to come to the UK. Which makes them not refugees.
Prima facie, not one of them is a refugee seeking asylum else they would have done so in France if not earlier.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
No they aren't. Let us not exaggerate. The annual death rate for Illegal Channel crossers, after today, is about 0.1%.
But this will only get worse, as they get more desperate, and the numbers increase, as those who cross the Channel succeed in entering British society illegally- which is what they are doing
You're surely too smart to be ignorant of this. And, besides, do you have any alternative solution? I see none
How does your offshoring proposal stop people entering Britain illegally?
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
If we make it Albania they won't get on the plane. They'll find a smuggler to get them over on a boat which means the problem remains.
Right, so they are not in fear of their lives, they just want to come to the UK. Which makes them not refugees.
As you know there is no compulsion on people to claim asylum in the first safe country.
BBC: Britain could face shortage of wine and spirits at Christmas, a drinks trade body has warned.
In a letter to Transport Secretary Grant Shapps, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) said rising costs and supply chain chaos have held up deliveries.
Imports were now taking up to five times longer than a year ago, it said. The letter was co-signed by 49 firms, including Pernod Ricard, Moët Hennessy and the Wine Society.
It said the sector has been badly affected by the HGV driver shortage crisis, which the industry has blamed on factors including Covid and Brexit.
LOL! Is this going to end up like the imaginary Turkey shortage?
My local Turkey farm has only 50% of the normal seasonal turkey stock because of Labour shortage.
Why do sceptics think so many reputable wine companies signed that letter?
I don't know why the wine company's, have singed a letter, predicting shortages, that might lead to panic buying, of the product that they make money selling.
Panic buying would help them with extra supplies coming in - wine offers expandable consumption opportunities. But with so many of these suppliers really struggling the extra isn't there so how does it help?
How many companies import wines and spirits? I imagine it's more than 49. So these have fucked up getting their heads round the new regulatory environment. The rest haven't.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Exactly.
If processing were handled in Rwanda then they'd be eager to actually get the case resolved, instead of the current situation.
The problem is the people who are refused asylum but then don’t say where they are from so can’t be returned. I doubt the Falklands would want them. May be Rwanda?
Australia they just (AIUI) keep them locked up until they return home
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
If we make it Albania they won't get on the plane. They'll find a smuggler to get them over on a boat which means the problem remains.
Right, so they are not in fear of their lives, they just want to come to the UK. Which makes them not refugees.
Prima facie, not one of them is a refugee seeking asylum else they would have done so in France if not earlier.
Indeed. This whole "people fleeing to the UK to escape persecution" argument is bollocks. They are in France. They are not being persecuted. They have made a deliberate choice to come to the UK.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Exactly.
If processing were handled in Rwanda then they'd be eager to actually get the case resolved, instead of the current situation.
The problem is the people who are refused asylum but then don’t say where they are from so can’t be returned. I doubt the Falklands would want them. May be Rwanda?
Australia they just (AIUI) keep them locked up until they return home
Yes, I was wondering about that. But in order to apply for asylum wouldn't you have to say where you were seeking asylum from?
Those who refuse to say anything, well yes they are in limbo indefinitely, one assumes.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
If we make it Albania they won't get on the plane. They'll find a smuggler to get them over on a boat which means the problem remains.
Right, so they are not in fear of their lives, they just want to come to the UK. Which makes them not refugees.
As you know there is no compulsion on people to claim asylum in the first safe country.
No compulsion but, if I was genuinely sh1t scared for my life, I would just be happy to have escaped from my hell hole.
This is a purposeful choice. They want to come to the UK. Fair enough. But, if they want to do so, they accept it on our terms.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
The ones who didn't let them in in the film were not the Nazis, it was Cuba and the USA.
The wine shortages are real. A number of reasons, all adding up. I was at the English wine industry’s big trade event today and it’s one of the topics: potentially an opportunity for English wines if it sees a shift in what people choose to drink - particularly bubbly - at Christmas.
On the flip side though there is lots of bad news particularly for new winemakers, to go with the very poor 2021 growing season. Equipment, trellising, labour etc all way more expensive than 2 years as a cumulative result of Covid travel restrictions, high metal prices, the well known lorry driver shortage and vast increases in import paperwork.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
Also, what the hell are "general left wing entities"?
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
If we make it Albania they won't get on the plane. They'll find a smuggler to get them over on a boat which means the problem remains.
Right, so they are not in fear of their lives, they just want to come to the UK. Which makes them not refugees.
Prima facie, not one of them is a refugee seeking asylum else they would have done so in France if not earlier.
Indeed. This whole "people fleeing to the UK to escape persecution" argument is bollocks. They are in France. They are not being persecuted. They have made a deliberate choice to come to the UK.
Correct. So what are you going to do about it - that is the debate. You can't say "you have to claim asylum in France as international law disagrees with the Tory propaganda line. But lets be clear - this isn't about asylum seekers. We receive far fewer than France does.
This is about illegal non-documented under the radar migrants who aren't claiming asylum, who run off the beach and disappear. Here and now you can't stop those because you can't stop the boats. But if we fly everyone out from France the demand for boats drops greatly and there is less opportunity for illegal entry.
Amazingly enough, if we start treating these people like people, and not some kind of terrifying invasion, we may be able to solve this in an effective and civilised manner.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Exactly.
If processing were handled in Rwanda then they'd be eager to actually get the case resolved, instead of the current situation.
The problem is the people who are refused asylum but then don’t say where they are from so can’t be returned. I doubt the Falklands would want them. May be Rwanda?
Australia they just (AIUI) keep them locked up until they return home
If we are going down this rate, and I'm not saying I approve, but could we ask/pay where ever has the Australian centres, if the UK could build an identical place next to it? probably cost a bit in flights, mind you.
The wine shortages are real. A number of reasons, all adding up. I was at the English wine industry’s big trade event today and it’s one of the topics: potentially an opportunity for English wines if it sees a shift in what people choose to drink - particularly bubbly - at Christmas.
On the flip side though there is lots of bad news particularly for new winemakers, to go with the very poor 2021 growing season. Equipment, trellising, labour etc all way more expensive than 2 years as a cumulative result of Covid travel restrictions, high metal prices, the well known lorry driver shortage and vast increases in import paperwork.
Coincidentally, Mrs P and I did the Camel Valley wine tour and tasting in Cornwall on Monday.
Highly recommended: interesting well-presented tour, great wines, and a beautiful location (helped by fantastic weather).
They seemed to have plenty of stock, especially fizz!
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
The ones who didn't let them in in the film were not the Nazis, it was Cuba and the USA.
Yes, the Nazis let them in after they were rejected. Indeed that was the point of the exercise.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
Also, what the hell are "general left wing entities"?
Probably all the Tory voters in the red wall that HYUFD has said aren't true Tories and can be discarded.
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
The wine shortages are real. A number of reasons, all adding up. I was at the English wine industry’s big trade event today and it’s one of the topics: potentially an opportunity for English wines if it sees a shift in what people choose to drink - particularly bubbly - at Christmas.
On the flip side though there is lots of bad news particularly for new winemakers, to go with the very poor 2021 growing season. Equipment, trellising, labour etc all way more expensive than 2 years as a cumulative result of Covid travel restrictions, high metal prices, the well known lorry driver shortage and vast increases in import paperwork.
Most of these countries also conduct significantly fewer tests per capita than we do, i.e. their caseloads are likely to be underestimated to a far greater degree than ours. This helps to explain the blind panic, and threats to pull or actual pulling of lockdown levers, in most countries that have higher case rates than the UK, and a good many of those that don't.
The wine shortages are real. A number of reasons, all adding up. I was at the English wine industry’s big trade event today and it’s one of the topics: potentially an opportunity for English wines if it sees a shift in what people choose to drink - particularly bubbly - at Christmas.
On the flip side though there is lots of bad news particularly for new winemakers, to go with the very poor 2021 growing season. Equipment, trellising, labour etc all way more expensive than 2 years as a cumulative result of Covid travel restrictions, high metal prices, the well known lorry driver shortage and vast increases in import paperwork.
Coincidentally, Mrs P and I did the Camel Valley wine tour and tasting in Cornwall on Monday.
Highly recommended: interesting well-presented tour, great wines, and a beautiful location (helped by fantastic weather).
They seemed to have plenty of stock, especially fizz!
They have nailed wine tourism better than anyone else in the country (and there are some pretty impressive runners up).
Home vineyard and visitor facilities in a perfect tourist location; excellent wine, largely made with grapes sourced from growers in much warmer areas like Essex and Sussex; a highly motivated and close knit family management team who are brilliant at marketing.
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
Blasphemy. Not only is there full employment, but all the unfillable jobs in London should be filled by single mothers from Barnsley
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Exactly.
If processing were handled in Rwanda then they'd be eager to actually get the case resolved, instead of the current situation.
The problem is the people who are refused asylum but then don’t say where they are from so can’t be returned. I doubt the Falklands would want them. May be Rwanda?
Australia they just (AIUI) keep them locked up until they return home
If we are going down this rate, and I'm not saying I approve, but could we ask/pay where ever has the Australian centres, if the UK could build an identical place next to it? probably cost a bit in flights, mind you.
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
Blasphemy. Not only is there full employment, but all the unfillable jobs in London should be filled by single mothers from Barnsley
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
This particular debate is a very unedifying one, since even more than many others it is assumed extreme options such as 'Let everybody in' or 'Let nobody in' are the only real options, and positions in between are just figleafs. Since people often use very broad arguments that would seem to imply either than setting any limits on immigration at all are immoral, or letting anybody in is dangerous or for suckers, that's not entirely surprising in fairness.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
The wine shortages are real. A number of reasons, all adding up. I was at the English wine industry’s big trade event today and it’s one of the topics: potentially an opportunity for English wines if it sees a shift in what people choose to drink - particularly bubbly - at Christmas.
On the flip side though there is lots of bad news particularly for new winemakers, to go with the very poor 2021 growing season. Equipment, trellising, labour etc all way more expensive than 2 years as a cumulative result of Covid travel restrictions, high metal prices, the well known lorry driver shortage and vast increases in import paperwork.
Plenty of stock in Majestic the other day!
Majestic is a good example of how supermarkets will probably have to adapt. They follow more of an Aldi/Lidl model with a frequently changing inventory. Same with the off licences. The one suffering most currently are the smaller specialist wine shops and the fixed range supermarkets like Sainsburys and Waitrose. Remember too that wine sellers should be building stockpiles ahead of Christmas, not just servicing current demand.
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
Blasphemy. Not only is there full employment, but all the unfillable jobs in London should be filled by single mothers from Barnsley
I arranged to meet a client in a pub the other night, only to discover when I arrived that it had been shuttered - due to lack of bar staff!
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
It does seem as if the centre in Nauru is open again, but in the end a lot of refugees made it to Australia:
"In March 2020, Home Affairs told the Senate estimates committee that "211 refugees and asylum seekers remained on Nauru, 228 in Papua New Guinea, and about 1,220, including their dependents, were in Australia to receive medical treatment"
The wine shortages are real. A number of reasons, all adding up. I was at the English wine industry’s big trade event today and it’s one of the topics: potentially an opportunity for English wines if it sees a shift in what people choose to drink - particularly bubbly - at Christmas.
On the flip side though there is lots of bad news particularly for new winemakers, to go with the very poor 2021 growing season. Equipment, trellising, labour etc all way more expensive than 2 years as a cumulative result of Covid travel restrictions, high metal prices, the well known lorry driver shortage and vast increases in import paperwork.
Coincidentally, Mrs P and I did the Camel Valley wine tour and tasting in Cornwall on Monday.
Highly recommended: interesting well-presented tour, great wines, and a beautiful location (helped by fantastic weather).
They seemed to have plenty of stock, especially fizz!
They have nailed wine tourism better than anyone else in the country (and there are some pretty impressive runners up).
Home vineyard and visitor facilities in a perfect tourist location; excellent wine, largely made with grapes sourced from growers in much warmer areas like Essex and Sussex; a highly motivated and close knit family management team who are brilliant at marketing.
It certainly worked on us - we're taking more wine back home thant we brought down for our self-catering week!
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
And they pay tax whilst working? Paying their way whilst waiting rather than just a hand out. 7 out of 10 get accepted by this government in the end. And having a bit more money those years having better quality of life. And is there anything more wrong than idleness or forced and kept in idleness?
If that is your platform Anabobzina I will vote for it. What colour rosette will you be wearing?
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Yes, but the delays are mostly unnecessary. Medical report needed? Report to Hut A at 0830. Translator needed? Here he is. Psychological report? Hut B at 1100. Genetic testing to prove familial connection, results by tomorrow.
It wouldn't be cheap, but funding rapid assessments, like other aspects of law, would be money well spent.
Which is why the refugee groups share a large degree of the blame. If it was as you said, then my gut feel is that most people (myself included) would accept that as a fair process, But we all know there are refugee groups who are constantly telling migrants how to evade the system, increase their chances of success by "modifying" their story, campaigning against every single deportation etc.
Did t they argue that using dental imaging as proof of age was a breach of human rights?
The wine shortages are real. A number of reasons, all adding up. I was at the English wine industry’s big trade event today and it’s one of the topics: potentially an opportunity for English wines if it sees a shift in what people choose to drink - particularly bubbly - at Christmas.
On the flip side though there is lots of bad news particularly for new winemakers, to go with the very poor 2021 growing season. Equipment, trellising, labour etc all way more expensive than 2 years as a cumulative result of Covid travel restrictions, high metal prices, the well known lorry driver shortage and vast increases in import paperwork.
Plenty of stock in Majestic the other day!
Majestic is a good example of how supermarkets will probably have to adapt. They follow more of an Aldi/Lidl model with a frequently changing inventory. Same with the off licences. The one suffering most currently are the smaller specialist wine shops and the fixed range supermarkets like Sainsburys and Waitrose. Remember too that wine sellers should be building stockpiles ahead of Christmas, not just servicing current demand.
It would be a mercy if Sainsburys were forced to change their selection. I stopped shopping for wine there ages ago due to severe boredom.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
For this to be workable we first need to identify a country or territory prepared to host our asylum processing centre.
Geniune question: is there any evidence any country will do that?
No. A government wallah was prevaricating and evading at length only today on this very question, IIRC on WatO.
More evidence they can't be bothered - because it's too much like hard work, too costly, or most likely both - if true.
The Falkland Islands are on the other side of the world, remote and inescapable, and have oodles of space in which to build facilities (the size of Northern Ireland with the population of a small market town.)
It'd cost a fortune, but it's eminently doable. The Government just doesn't want to.
The Falklands are a bit too remote, and have too few people to staff a centre, particularly when skills are considered.
One of the brownwater islands in the Thames Estuary would probably be better.
Napoleon was "processed" on St Helena.
1 man guard by 4 frigates. It would be rather expensive to do the same for 25 000 per year!
My point is that it's not as remote as the Falklands!
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
The ones who didn't let them in in the film were not the Nazis, it was Cuba and the USA.
Yes, the Nazis let them in after they were rejected. Indeed that was the point of the exercise.
I'm not sure that's quite true. It was Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands that let them in... just before the outbreak of WW2.
Many who landed in the last three countries were subsequently rounded up and killed in the Holocaust by the Nazis
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
If we make it Albania they won't get on the plane. They'll find a smuggler to get them over on a boat which means the problem remains.
Right, so they are not in fear of their lives, they just want to come to the UK. Which makes them not refugees.
Real refugee: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country PDQ!" Non-refugee: "I WANT to get to the UK by any means!"
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
And they pay tax whilst working? Paying their way whilst waiting rather than just a hand out. 7 out of 10 get accepted by this government in the end. And having a bit more money those years having better quality of life. And is there anything more wrong than idleness or forced and kept in idleness?
If that is your platform Anabobzina I will vote for it. What colour rosette will you be wearing?
I try to avoid party labels these days. Those who know me consider me an old red rosette with a bias for liberty.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
This particular debate is a very unedifying one, since even more than many others it is assumed extreme options such as 'Let everybody in' or 'Let nobody in' are the only real options, and positions in between are just figleafs. Since people often use very broad arguments that would seem to imply either than setting any limits on immigration at all are immoral, or letting anybody in is dangerous or for suckers, that's not entirely surprising in fairness.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
Spot on. We need a grown up discussion of immigration, shorn of myths and hysteria. Not holding my breath.
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
And they pay tax whilst working? Paying their way whilst waiting rather than just a hand out. 7 out of 10 get accepted by this government in the end. And having a bit more money those years having better quality of life. And is there anything more wrong than idleness or forced and kept in idleness?
If that is your platform Anabobzina I will vote for it. What colour rosette will you be wearing?
I try to avoid party labels these days. Those who know me consider me an old red rosette with a bias for liberty.
Then why not a nice yellow one? 🙂
Anyway the idea you suggested is so very sensible I can’t even understand why it’s not already happening.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Exactly.
If processing were handled in Rwanda then they'd be eager to actually get the case resolved, instead of the current situation.
The problem is the people who are refused asylum but then don’t say where they are from so can’t be returned. I doubt the Falklands would want them. May be Rwanda?
Australia they just (AIUI) keep them locked up until they return home
Yes, I was wondering about that. But in order to apply for asylum wouldn't you have to say where you were seeking asylum from?
Those who refuse to say anything, well yes they are in limbo indefinitely, one assumes.
I think there is a whole thing about destroying your papers and then claiming you come from Syria despite looking Kenyan (for example).
And even if you are refused asylum you can’t be deported of the Syrians (in this case) point out that the individual looks like they are from East Africa and has no papers to prove they are Syrian.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Exactly.
If processing were handled in Rwanda then they'd be eager to actually get the case resolved, instead of the current situation.
The problem is the people who are refused asylum but then don’t say where they are from so can’t be returned. I doubt the Falklands would want them. May be Rwanda?
Australia they just (AIUI) keep them locked up until they return home
If we are going down this rate, and I'm not saying I approve, but could we ask/pay where ever has the Australian centres, if the UK could build an identical place next to it? probably cost a bit in flights, mind you.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Yes, but the delays are mostly unnecessary. Medical report needed? Report to Hut A at 0830. Translator needed? Here he is. Psychological report? Hut B at 1100. Genetic testing to prove familial connection, results by tomorrow.
It wouldn't be cheap, but funding rapid assessments, like other aspects of law, would be money well spent.
Which is why the refugee groups share a large degree of the blame. If it was as you said, then my gut feel is that most people (myself included) would accept that as a fair process, But we all know there are refugee groups who are constantly telling migrants how to evade the system, increase their chances of success by "modifying" their story, campaigning against every single deportation etc.
Did t they argue that using dental imaging as proof of age was a breach of human rights?
They did indeed. Which made a mockery of the system - seeing men with grey hair and furrowed brows being explained away as 'children' was an absolute p1ss take.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Exactly.
If processing were handled in Rwanda then they'd be eager to actually get the case resolved, instead of the current situation.
The problem is the people who are refused asylum but then don’t say where they are from so can’t be returned. I doubt the Falklands would want them. May be Rwanda?
Australia they just (AIUI) keep them locked up until they return home
Yes, I was wondering about that. But in order to apply for asylum wouldn't you have to say where you were seeking asylum from?
Those who refuse to say anything, well yes they are in limbo indefinitely, one assumes.
I think there is a whole thing about destroying your papers and then claiming you come from Syria despite looking Kenyan (for example).
And even if you are refused asylum you can’t be deported of the Syrians (in this case) point out that the individual looks like they are from East Africa and has no papers to prove they are Syrian.
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
And they pay tax whilst working? Paying their way whilst waiting rather than just a hand out. 7 out of 10 get accepted by this government in the end. And having a bit more money those years having better quality of life. And is there anything more wrong than idleness or forced and kept in idleness?
If that is your platform Anabobzina I will vote for it. What colour rosette will you be wearing?
I have always wondered why we don't let asylum seekers work, rather than give them handouts.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
I don't think that we need to wait for a third country, we should put them straight into assessment camps. Medical and legal services onsite etc, and speed up the whole process. No leaving unless approved. The key is quick assessment before evidence goes cold, and deportation after refusal, not years in the doldrums in Liverpool or elsewhere.
Good luck with trying to speed up the process.
The entire field of immigration law, from the advocates point of view, is demanding more appeals, more extensions etc.
The howling if you put a clock on the process - "You have 6 months to prove your case, or you get a plane ticket" - would be incredible,
Exactly.
If processing were handled in Rwanda then they'd be eager to actually get the case resolved, instead of the current situation.
The problem is the people who are refused asylum but then don’t say where they are from so can’t be returned. I doubt the Falklands would want them. May be Rwanda?
Australia they just (AIUI) keep them locked up until they return home
Rwanda already offer off-shore asylum processing for the United Nations and other countries too. The asylum seekers have free roam of the country, they're not locked up, and yes if their claim is denied then that means they can either be flown home or stay in Rwanda then. Funnily enough, many move on of their own accord quite rapidly.
Rwanda already have this agreement in place for the UN other countries. No doubt in exchange for a big cheque.
Whilst I can think of additional reasons for the disparity in number beside official policy, I hesitate to suggest the French probably have a point.
The French do have a point, absolutely pains me to say it.
Well, yes and no.
Consider the possibilities:
1. The French are pleased to accommodate as many irregular migrants as turn up on their territory - in which case that's all fine and dandy for them, but it doesn't give them the right to demand that others adopt similarly permissive policies. 2. The French don't want the migrants and are jealous that they're lumbered with more of them than we are - in which case the correct response is not to go blaming Britain for having a moat, but to try to do more to control immigration to France.
Personally I'm not part of the pull up the drawbridge brigade, and I think that more should be done to create routes to assist legal migration from abroad, i.e. you encourage vulnerable people to make applications through UK embassies in the first safe country they can get to, and pay the air fare for them to come here if accepted. However, a theoretical UK Government that really cared about managing the issue properly (for I don't think the current lot can be arsed) would nevertheless be perfectly entitled to say a flat "no" to completely unregulated boat people arrivals.
The Government should be taking in people who are screened to minimise security risk, and in numbers that the electorate is willing to tolerate - and, as the warming of public attitudes to immigration after Brexit showed, I reckon that the electorate would be content to take in fairly large numbers of people who might otherwise end up on these dinghies, if they thought that the inflow was being properly organised.
Nah, fuck this shit. People are now dying en masse in the Channel
It pains me to say it but I agree with Rochdale Pioneers. if you arrive in Calais the British government will now kindly fly you to Rwanda or Albania or Paraguay or whereever, for a tedious, prolonged processing in a refugree camp. It will be humane - you will be fed, and safe, and you won't be raped - but it will be boring as fuck, utterly pointless, kinda like a prison, and a waste of 2 years, and you will tell your friends back home: Don't bother, the Brits won't take you
Then they stop coming very quickly. Australia did it, and it worked, and now even the lefty Australians barely whimper in objection
It will also be extremely expensive at first, but then it will save money (and lives) very quickly
Agreed. The way to both sort the issue and give a home to genuine refugees is to go through the vetting process in a third country. If they are truly in fear of their lives, that should be acceptable.
Not a third country. Use our own territory overseas. Cyprus or the Falklands or Ascension Island. Look, when people come here and claim asylum they are warehoused - literally told to sit and wait for an indefinite period whilst their claims are checked. Here is a house on Murder Mile that nobody will live in. You are hated by everyone, you can't work, we don't give you enough credit on prepaid vouchers to do anything but survive. That could be done anywhere.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
They are supposed to be in fear of their lives / persecution. Do you think the Jews fleeing from Nazi Germany would have turned their noses up at being processed in a third country if it meant they could get safety in the end? No. They would have grabbed onto the branch that was offered with all their might.
The implicit assumption (and Australian system) is that all are automatically rejected.
No, I don't think they would. Maybe I'm not typical (no comments) but, if I felt the process was fair and justified, then I would happily accept more genuine refugees. But we all know there are plenty of interest groups (refugee groups, general left wing entities, certain legal types etc) who have a vested interest in the current system.
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
This particular debate is a very unedifying one, since even more than many others it is assumed extreme options such as 'Let everybody in' or 'Let nobody in' are the only real options, and positions in between are just figleafs. Since people often use very broad arguments that would seem to imply either than setting any limits on immigration at all are immoral, or letting anybody in is dangerous or for suckers, that's not entirely surprising in fairness.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
That requires both sides to engage, and I mean both sides, At the moment, the default argument of people like Rochdale is "if you don't let them in, you are evil / Nazis / despicable". Name me one occasion when a refugee group has actually come up with a half way house solution where they recognise the concerns of the other side and suggest something that all sides can agree on? They never do. It is all nice, meaningless language but their aim is clear - they want everyone who wants to come in to be let in, regardless of their eligibility.
There are jobs a plenty in town for people who want to come and work here. Is it possible to offer London visas for immigrants? We need people, quickly. Lots of the pubs and restaurants down here are absolutely desperate for staff.
And they pay tax whilst working? Paying their way whilst waiting rather than just a hand out. 7 out of 10 get accepted by this government in the end. And having a bit more money those years having better quality of life. And is there anything more wrong than idleness or forced and kept in idleness?
If that is your platform Anabobzina I will vote for it. What colour rosette will you be wearing?
A completely open door immigration system is all well and good till you try and work out where everyone is going to live, see a doctor...
Comments
One of the brownwater islands in the Thames Estuary would probably be better.
If processing were handled in Rwanda then they'd be eager to actually get the case resolved, instead of the current situation.
But I do like this comment:
'Vice News described The New European as a newspaper for the "sore loser" that is "not united by a love for Europe, but rather a disdain for the 52%".'
Ministers aren't fixing the problem because they don't want to.
I don't think that the death rate is much higher, but I reckon it's a fair bit higher than 0.1%.
Nor do I need to as his government screws me every day.
It cannot be as much fun as the time I found a copy of the socialist worker (or something of that nature) on a train.
It wouldn't be cheap, but funding rapid assessments, like other aspects of law, would be money well spent.
This is deeply harsh, but then, imposing mass illegal immigration on the British people is harsh, and it is even harsher on those who go through the many many legal hoops of LEGAL immigration - as my brilliant, smart, hardworking, honest Thai cleaner Nok is doing - and it has taken her years, and she is just now waiting for her final test, and citizenship.
Even harsher than all of that is dying in a Channel, by falling off a dinghy, age 2
That's what we have to stop. All of it
Many of the people on this thread whining about what a shit job this government are doing voted for these fukwits, but haven't drawn the necessary conclusion yet...
Anyway, I have a better solution. Send them to Primrose Hill and make all the nice upper middle class people who live in the big houses and who constantly call on us to let them in take, mmmm, 2 per room of their house.
Remote offshoring would have visible deterrent value, i.e. it would be a demonstration that people arriving in dinghies will end up further away from Britain than when they started and will never be allowed back again. Make the situation hopeless for the first few thousand arrivals and those who would have come afterwards will learn not to risk their lives or waste their money trying.
You then find host countries willing to take the people already at the offshoring centre in exchange for a fat bung, and mothball it after a couple of years. Case closed.
The point here is that if we set up a gulag in Rwanda or Albania or Afghanistan, people won't accept it. It'll be obvious that we're shipping them off somewhere else. House them on British territory.
The bigger point is that the Nationality and Borders Bill is tinkering at the edges. No one seriously thinks it's going to make a blind bit of difference to the overall problem, which remains as intractible as ever.
A bunch of really enthusiastic people smugglers show up. With a couple of big ships. We will take you to another European country they say.
They land the refugees by night..
The next morning the refugees realise they are in Ceuta. But hey...
I'm not sure that anyone can really stop this. The French? Realistically they can't seal the entire coastline (even if they did accept British troops on indefinite mission). The British? Likewise. The refugees? They're taking a risk in the hope of a good life - are we sure we would make different choices? The smugglers? If they collectively retired, yes, but if a situation is created where X is desperate to get to Y, there will always be people offering to do it for £££s.
We could help, by offering a fast (cf. above) legal route for people who can prove a UK connection or skills that we badly need - that would reduce the flow, though not stop it. And yes, the third country option ought to be possible for others if we throw enough money at it - sure, the country that agrees will demand a very high price, but there will be some figure that someone will accept. But I don't agree with Leon that that route should be slow and unpleasant - if that's the case, people will opt for the Channel route anyway.
Do we have any estimates regarding how many illegal immigrants are crossing the channel and not getting picked up? If the proportion is high, offshore processing will only encourage more attempts, not discourage.
It would be a modern version of The Voyage of the Damned: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyage_of_the_Damned
Rather like booing the manager but still loyal to the club?
As for the "if you don't let them, you are Nazis" argument, it's getting a bit tiresome.
Australia they just (AIUI) keep them locked up until they return home
Those who refuse to say anything, well yes they are in limbo indefinitely, one assumes.
This is a purposeful choice. They want to come to the UK. Fair enough. But, if they want to do so, they accept it on our terms.
On the flip side though there is lots of bad news particularly for new winemakers, to go with the very poor 2021 growing season. Equipment, trellising, labour etc all way more expensive than 2 years as a cumulative result of Covid travel restrictions, high metal prices, the well known lorry driver shortage and vast increases in import paperwork.
This is about illegal non-documented under the radar migrants who aren't claiming asylum, who run off the beach and disappear. Here and now you can't stop those because you can't stop the boats. But if we fly everyone out from France the demand for boats drops greatly and there is less opportunity for illegal entry.
Amazingly enough, if we start treating these people like people, and not some kind of terrifying invasion, we may be able to solve this in an effective and civilised manner.
Highly recommended: interesting well-presented tour, great wines, and a beautiful location (helped by fantastic weather).
They seemed to have plenty of stock, especially fizz!
Based on 7-day rolling average, source: ourworldindata.org
Slovakia: 1.87k
Austria: 1.55k
Czech Republic: 1.47k
Belgium: 1.36k
Netherlands: 1.28k
Hungary: 979
Ireland: 884
Denmark: 677
Switzerland: 641
Germany: 633
UK: 627
Poland: 556
Latvia: 453
Singapore: 369
France: 297
US: 288
Italy: 163
Spain: 129
Sweden: 105
Canada: 68
South Korea: 62
Australia: 51
New Zealand: 37
Most of these countries also conduct significantly fewer tests per capita than we do, i.e. their caseloads are likely to be underestimated to a far greater degree than ours. This helps to explain the blind panic, and threats to pull or actual pulling of lockdown levers, in most countries that have higher case rates than the UK, and a good many of those that don't.
Home vineyard and visitor facilities in a perfect tourist location; excellent wine, largely made with grapes sourced from growers in much warmer areas like Essex and Sussex; a highly motivated and close knit family management team who are brilliant at marketing.
But I think rochdale pretty much nailed it in that essentially whatever it is we are trying to achieve right now doesn't seem to be working for any of the parties involved. So we need to think about it and act upon it in a new way.
Time to remind ourselves of his track record.
• Pubs won’t open outside on 12 April, as it’s not viable (Wrong)
• Covid cases will hit 100,000 a week by August. (Wrong then, and still wrong now)
• Everywhere in Europe will be in lockdown by December (Pending, almost certainly wrong)
"In March 2020, Home Affairs told the Senate estimates committee that "211 refugees and asylum seekers remained on Nauru, 228 in Papua New Guinea, and about 1,220, including their dependents, were in Australia to receive medical treatment"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru_Regional_Processing_Centre
If that is your platform Anabobzina I will vote for it. What colour rosette will you be wearing?
Doing a first-class job by the looks of it.
Many who landed in the last three countries were subsequently rounded up and killed in the Holocaust by the Nazis
Non-refugee: "I WANT to get to the UK by any means!"
Not holding my breath.
Anyway the idea you suggested is so very sensible I can’t even understand why it’s not already happening.
And even if you are refused asylum you can’t be deported of the Syrians (in this case) point out that the individual looks like they are from East Africa and has no papers to prove they are Syrian.
So they stay in the UK
Rwanda already have this agreement in place for the UN other countries. No doubt in exchange for a big cheque.
Its safe and humane.