Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The Channel Migrant tragedy on many of the front pages – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 26 in General
imageThe Channel Migrant tragedy on many of the front pages – politicalbetting.com

The awfulness of the tragedy in the Channel inevitably gets a lot of coverage this morning and one of the issues is that there appears to be no obvious solution.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 6,975
    Test
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,023
    This is a real no win situation for Priti P, I can imagine her frustration (given her personality) and trying to blame France, although tabloid friendly doesnt really help the case - I imagine that if migrants were on beaches trying to leave Kent to go to France - the likes of Farage etc would be there helping them and the thought of having French police there to detain them from leaving would be incendiary.
  • pingping Posts: 1,421
    Markets taking a hit
  • TazTaz Posts: 2,476
    The whole refugee crisis is a mess with no political consensus. The greens and Lib Dem parties are both pretty much open borders. The Tories are fortress Britain and labour wants to be the former but feels it has to be the latter. We should have the benefits of helping asylum seekers and migration properly debated and explained. We cannot continue to allow people to risk,their lives in this way.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,609
    Taz said:

    The whole refugee crisis is a mess with no political consensus. The greens and Lib Dem parties are both pretty much open borders. The Tories are fortress Britain and labour wants to be the former but feels it has to be the latter. We should have the benefits of helping asylum seekers and migration properly debated and explained. We cannot continue to allow people to risk,their lives in this way.

    It is not the case that the Lib Dems favour open borders. This is the most current statement on policy (obviously the Brexit bit is obsolete, though LDs do favour rejoining the SM with FOM):

    https://www.libdems.org.uk/plan-immigration
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,721
    Sandpit said:

    There are only two ways to stop the migrant crossings. Either the French take action against the traffickers (ha ha), or the British address the issue from the demand side. It’s not a popular solution, but Australia showed how to do it.

    It's popular with voters surely?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,609
    edited November 26
    Sandpit said:

    There are only two ways to stop the migrant crossings. Either the French take action against the traffickers (ha ha), or the British address the issue from the demand side. It’s not a popular solution, but Australia showed how to do it.

    Though it is the case that asylum seekers in Australia whether by air or sea are nearly all in community settings in Australia, not offshore. Indeed their policy in practice looks a lot like our current one.

    https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum-community/



    Pro rata that would be about 270 000 in the UK, 90 000 pending cases.

    In the UK there are 77 000 pending cases at present.

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,242

    This is a real no win situation for Priti P, I can imagine her frustration (given her personality) and trying to blame France, although tabloid friendly doesnt really help the case - I imagine that if migrants were on beaches trying to leave Kent to go to France - the likes of Farage etc would be there helping them and the thought of having French police there to detain them from leaving would be incendiary.

    She should have known the deal from the start, wherever the buck stops it definitely isn't with BJ. The briefing seems to be that the great man is 'frustrated' with Priti's inability to deal with this.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,992
    edited November 26
    Foxy said:


    Sandpit said:

    There are only two ways to stop the migrant crossings. Either the French take action against the traffickers (ha ha), or the British address the issue from the demand side. It’s not a popular solution, but Australia showed how to do it.

    Though it is the case that asylum seekers in Australia whether by air or sea are nearly all in community settings in Australia, not offshore. Indeed their policy in practice looks a lot like our current one.

    https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum-community/



    Pro rata that would be about 270 000 in the UK.

    In the UK there are 77 000 pending cases at present.

    The point is that no-one arriving by small boat is settled in Australia, and the Australian coast guard pick up people on the way and immediately move them offshore. If the migrants in Calais knew that getting on a boat meant they’d never be allowed to settle in the UK, the crossings would stop almost overnight.

    The UK has the correct strategy, to pick up those seeking asylum directly from war zones and places of unrest, such as Afghanistan, Syria and Hong Kong.

    I agree that the apparent inability to deport people is a big problem. There needs to be immediate deportation following the first appeal, with further appeals both from overseas and at the person’s own expense.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,074

    This is a real no win situation for Priti P, I can imagine her frustration (given her personality) and trying to blame France, although tabloid friendly doesnt really help the case - I imagine that if migrants were on beaches trying to leave Kent to go to France - the likes of Farage etc would be there helping them and the thought of having French police there to detain them from leaving would be incendiary.

    She should have known the deal from the start, wherever the buck stops it definitely isn't with BJ. The briefing seems to be that the great man is 'frustrated' with Priti's inability to deal with this.
    Couldn’t happen to a nicer person ….
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,462
    Nigelb said:

    Comprehensive thread on nu and immune evasion from one of the best labs in the business:
    https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1464005676842184705

    Interestingly, the AZN antibody cocktail seems to hold up better than Regeneron etc.

    Grim.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,609
    edited November 26
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:


    Sandpit said:

    There are only two ways to stop the migrant crossings. Either the French take action against the traffickers (ha ha), or the British address the issue from the demand side. It’s not a popular solution, but Australia showed how to do it.

    Though it is the case that asylum seekers in Australia whether by air or sea are nearly all in community settings in Australia, not offshore. Indeed their policy in practice looks a lot like our current one.

    https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum-community/



    Pro rata that would be about 270 000 in the UK.

    In the UK there are 77 000 pending cases at present.

    The point is that no-one arriving by small boat is settled in Australia, and the Australian coast guard pick up people on the way and immediately move them offshore. If the migrants in Calais knew that getting on a boat meant they’d never be allowed to settle in the UK, the crossings would stop almost overnight.

    The UK has the correct strategy, to pick up those seeking asylum directly from war zones and places of unrest, such as Afghanistan, Syria and Hong Kong.

    I agree that the apparent inability to deport people is a big problem. There needs to be immediate deportation following the first appeal, with further appeals both from overseas and at the person’s own expense.
    That isn't actually correct about arrivals by boat in Australia, according to my link.

    "Between 25 November 2011 and 30 June 2021, 37,473 people who sought asylum by boat were given bridging visa E. As of 30 June 2021, 11,891 of these people were still in the community (9,610 on a bridging visa E and the other 2,281 waiting for a further BVE). The rest of the people, which amounts to 25,582 people, were either granted a substantive visa, left Australia, detained or deceased."

    It seems the vast majority are in the community on bridging visa E, which includes the right to work, currently 21 000* or so. There are less than 300 on the offshore camp in Nauru.

    *there are also BVE visas for arrivals by air.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,074
    Chris said:

    Nigelb said:

    Comprehensive thread on nu and immune evasion from one of the best labs in the business:
    https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1464005676842184705

    Interestingly, the AZN antibody cocktail seems to hold up better than Regeneron etc.

    Grim.
    Until there’s more data on disease severity in vaccinated and/or previously infected individuals, we don’t know that.
    Of concern, certainly.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,609
    Nigelb said:

    Comprehensive thread on nu and immune evasion from one of the best labs in the business:
    https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1464005676842184705

    Interestingly, the AZN antibody cocktail seems to hold up better than Regeneron etc.

    Though AZN didn't work very well on the previous South African variety.

    Bit of a shame. I was looking at Botswana/Namibia for a holiday this year. Isle of Wight again I suppose.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,236
    edited November 26
    Morning everybody.

    Good header Mr S! One of the ironies is that around the time Ms P's parents came here there were bitter arguments about the rightness or otherwise of 'allowing' them in. (IIRC they arrived just before the Amin announcement.)
    One of the issues of course is that if someone's asylum application is refused, to where should they be deported?
    Is there not some means where by we can operate 'reception centres' in Calais?

    Of course, if Queen Mary Tudor hadn't lost ownership of Calais, we wouldn't be in quite this mess.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,869
    Nigelb said:

    Comprehensive thread on nu and immune evasion from one of the best labs in the business:
    https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1464005676842184705

    Interestingly, the AZN antibody cocktail seems to hold up better than Regeneron etc.

    Very interesting. Thanks.

    Still wait and see mode, I guess, but the insights given from this kind of technique are fascinating.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 905
    Foxy said:

    Taz said:

    The whole refugee crisis is a mess with no political consensus. The greens and Lib Dem parties are both pretty much open borders. The Tories are fortress Britain and labour wants to be the former but feels it has to be the latter. We should have the benefits of helping asylum seekers and migration properly debated and explained. We cannot continue to allow people to risk,their lives in this way.

    It is not the case that the Lib Dems favour open borders. This is the most current statement on policy (obviously the Brexit bit is obsolete, though LDs do favour rejoining the SM with FOM):

    https://www.libdems.org.uk/plan-immigration
    It's vague waffle. One strongly suspects that, in practice, a Liberal Democrat-run system would be utterly disinterested in throwing anybody out of the country, because it wouldn't be nice. And certainly restarting the conveyor belt from the EU is crackers.

    There's no need to turn the country outright into a fortress, but by the same token having open borders with a region of something like half-a-billion people, and an excessively permissive attitude towards migration from the whole of the rest of the world, is deeply stupid. After half-a-century and more of struggling painfully for the rights of women and gay people, the last thing on Earth we bloody need is a constant stream of social and religious conservatives from the developing world. Nor is it sensible to import masses of people from low and middle income countries willing to put up with crap wages and working conditions (and therefore permitting scalper bosses to perpetuate them,) or to persist with the population Ponzi scheme: importing young people to try to shore up the tax base and solve our tremendous elderly care problem, at the cost of making the country ever more crowded, hiking property prices higher and higher, and simply creating even more acute problems for the next generation to solve. Indeed, I would argue that, from the point of view both of easing human pressure on the environment and improving the sheer liveability of the country, we should be looking at promoting a managed decline in our oversized population - not endlessly increasing it by compensating for below replacement birth rates by importing many hundreds of thousands of people each year to plug the gaps.

    Bottom line is, the current electorate doesn't want a limitless number of migrants and there's every reason to suppose that upper middle class leftists (who wish to display internationalist virtue, whilst ever-so-conveniently reinstating their endless supply of cheap nannies and other domestics) do. You wouldn't trust a Lib Dem to run an immigration system in line with the priorities and wishes of the public any more than you'd trust a Tory to build a railway to Leeds. It's as simple as that.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,074
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Comprehensive thread on nu and immune evasion from one of the best labs in the business:
    https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1464005676842184705

    Interestingly, the AZN antibody cocktail seems to hold up better than Regeneron etc.

    Though AZN didn't work very well on the previous South African variety.

    Bit of a shame. I was looking at Botswana/Namibia for a holiday this year. Isle of Wight again I suppose.
    The new AZN antibody injection rather the vaccine.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,853
    If after 2 years the 2019 scheme skill isn’t fully operational, there is 1 partial answer. Actually implement what was talked about but hey that isn’t the plan of this Government.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,609
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Comprehensive thread on nu and immune evasion from one of the best labs in the business:
    https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1464005676842184705

    Interestingly, the AZN antibody cocktail seems to hold up better than Regeneron etc.

    Though AZN didn't work very well on the previous South African variety.

    Bit of a shame. I was looking at Botswana/Namibia for a holiday this year. Isle of Wight again I suppose.
    The new AZN antibody injection rather the vaccine.
    Ah! Missed that. Caffeine not working yet ☕👍
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,462
    Nigelb said:

    Chris said:

    Nigelb said:

    Comprehensive thread on nu and immune evasion from one of the best labs in the business:
    https://twitter.com/jbloom_lab/status/1464005676842184705

    Interestingly, the AZN antibody cocktail seems to hold up better than Regeneron etc.

    Grim.
    Until there’s more data on disease severity in vaccinated and/or previously infected individuals, we don’t know that.
    Of concern, certainly.
    Given the mess much of the world is still in with things as they have been, I would say the indications of immune escape and enhanced transmission would be grim enough, even if the disease were no more severe.

  • Those applying for asylum in the UK should apply in the first safe country they reach. Those coming in boats across the channel should not be granted asylum under any circumstances whatsoever
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228
    Catastrophic news:

    Tim Paine: Former Australia captain to take immediate break from the game
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/59345925

    So not only will Australia have a better captain, but a better keeper and a stronger middle order.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,022
    R4 French Interior Minister cancels meeting with Patel after Johnson letter to Macron.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,853

    Those applying for asylum in the UK should apply in the first safe country they reach. Those coming in boats across the channel should not be granted asylum under any circumstances whatsoever

    Sadly that isn’t what international law says..
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,869
    Sandpit said:

    There are only two ways to stop the migrant crossings. Either the French take action against the traffickers (ha ha), or the British address the issue from the demand side. It’s not a popular solution, but Australia showed how to do it.

    The third way is international cooperation (ha ha again, I guess) where the UK takes its 'fair share' (e.g. a proportion of migrants arriving in EU - would have made mores sense when we were in EU - or France, determined by relative population size) so there are legitimate ways to get from e.g. France to the UK, but those taking illegal routes get bounced back to (and accepted) by France etc. France also obliged to step up efforts at their end, in exchange for shipping out more of their asylum seekers. It would mean UK taking more people than now, which could be the sticking point.

    A simpler compromise that wouldn't require UK to take as many would be an agreement with France to return Channel crosssers but swap them for a larger number (to give France some incentive to do it, say 20% more) who were applying to come to the UK at processing sites in France away from the channel. That does however give France a perverse incentive to not prevent Channel crosssers (as now, of course).

    All and any of those - including your suggestion - require the vast majority of Channel crosssers to be caught before landing and dispersing, of course.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,022
    French Interior Ministry: ‘We consider Boris Johnson’s public letter unacceptable and in opposition with discussions between counterparts. As a consequence, Priti Patel is not invited anymore to the meeting on Sunday.’

    https://twitter.com/simonjonesnews/status/1464130103630344197?s=21
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,992

    French Interior Ministry: ‘We consider Boris Johnson’s public letter unacceptable and in opposition with discussions between counterparts. As a consequence, Priti Patel is not invited anymore to the meeting on Sunday.’

    https://twitter.com/simonjonesnews/status/1464130103630344197?s=21

    So the French are still trying to play politics, rather than conduct talks with the intention of stopping people drowning in the Channel.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,497
    edited November 26
    12 GW being generated by wind of 32 GW total demand. It's not good enough, it ought to be at least double that when there's a moderate storm about.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,609
    I was musing on the classic 1942 film Casablanca the other day. There are several plot strands but perhaps the most interesting is the "letters of transit" stolen by the Peter Lorre character and hidden by Bogarts character Rick, who later passes them on. These stolen documents permit the bearer free travel to neutral Portugal, and then onwards to the USA.

    Is Rick the most celebrated "People Trafficker" in movie history? And should the Lazlos had to claim asylum in Portugal rather than the USA?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,236
    Sandpit said:

    French Interior Ministry: ‘We consider Boris Johnson’s public letter unacceptable and in opposition with discussions between counterparts. As a consequence, Priti Patel is not invited anymore to the meeting on Sunday.’

    https://twitter.com/simonjonesnews/status/1464130103630344197?s=21

    So the French are still trying to play politics, rather than conduct talks with the intention of stopping people drowning in the Channel.
    To be frank, it looks as though our PM is the one playing politics, setting out a suggestion which he knew in advance would be unacceptable.

    Most, if not all, of those presently waiting in N. France would be an asset to this country, although, of course we have, in concert with the EU, to do 'something' about the continued drift of people to Northern and Western Europe.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,497
    No point overly worrying about Nu to my mind, people need to take their vaccines, cut down on the junkfood, smoking and drinking and up exercise.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228
    Foxy said:

    I was musing on the classic 1942 film Casablanca the other day. There are several plot strands but perhaps the most interesting is the "letters of transit" stolen by the Peter Lorre character and hidden by Bogarts character Rick, who later passes them on. These stolen documents permit the bearer free travel to neutral Portugal, and then onwards to the USA.

    Is Rick the most celebrated "People Trafficker" in movie history? And should the Lazlos had to claim asylum in Portugal rather than the USA?

    Portugal was a neutral country, not a safe one from the Laszlo point of view. Do you think Salazar would have let him publish left-wing material?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,579
    Pulpstar said:

    No point overly worrying about Nu to my mind, people need to take their vaccines, cut down on the junkfood, smoking and drinking and up exercise.

    You missed out ensuring supplies of broth... :)
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,888
    Pulpstar said:

    12 GW being generated by wind of 32 GW total demand. It's not good enough, it ought to be at least double that when there's a moderate storm about.

    The North Sea offshore turbines are going to get a tasty battering this pm
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,825
    Morning all.

    The Lib Dem policy linked above seems incoherent.

    On the one hand they propose breaking the legs of the current detention system - a judicial decision require d to prolong beyond 3 days, on the second hand to do all kinds of things to open borders, and on the third hand to present themselves as the party of the Nimby and not build houses when we have a very small number of empties.

    It does not add up, Corporal Jones.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,609
    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    The Lib Dem policy linked above seems incoherent.

    On the one hand they propose breaking the legs of the current detention system - a judicial decision require d to prolong beyond 3 days, on the second hand to do all kinds of things to open borders, and on the third hand to present themselves as the party of the Nimby and not build houses when we have a very small number of empties.

    It does not add up, Corporal Jones.

    Sure, if I were writing it, it would be different (and as it hasn't been updated since Brexit, it is in need of doing so), but it is not an "Open Door" policy.

  • eekeek Posts: 15,853

    Sandpit said:

    French Interior Ministry: ‘We consider Boris Johnson’s public letter unacceptable and in opposition with discussions between counterparts. As a consequence, Priti Patel is not invited anymore to the meeting on Sunday.’

    https://twitter.com/simonjonesnews/status/1464130103630344197?s=21

    So the French are still trying to play politics, rather than conduct talks with the intention of stopping people drowning in the Channel.
    To be frank, it looks as though our PM is the one playing politics, setting out a suggestion which he knew in advance would be unacceptable.

    Most, if not all, of those presently waiting in N. France would be an asset to this country, although, of course we have, in concert with the EU, to do 'something' about the continued drift of people to Northern and Western Europe.
    Boris is now stuck with an impossible situation, media cameras are focussed on something he can’t thing, which means the only outcomes for him is to look useless. The French know what Boris is asking for is impossible, but it will be interesting to hear the exact French reply to see how much they want to help Boris out (will it be nope, it’s your problem or something else).

    The truth is we don’t know what the aim and pull into Britain is. If it’s to get work via the black economy nothing is going to stop the migration flow, if it’s to claim asylum a method within France is required.

    As for your final point The drift North and West really hasn’t started yet
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 43,228
    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    The Lib Dem policy linked above seems incoherent.

    On the one hand they propose breaking the legs of the current detention system - a judicial decision require d to prolong beyond 3 days, on the second hand to do all kinds of things to open borders, and on the third hand to present themselves as the party of the Nimby and not build houses when we have a very small number of empties.

    It does not add up, Corporal Jones.

    A Lib Dem policy that's incoherent? How dare you, sir?

    Why, you'll be saying the government's lying about its railway policy next. And then you'll be on to saying Donald Trump is a threat to democracy...
  • Sandpit said:

    French Interior Ministry: ‘We consider Boris Johnson’s public letter unacceptable and in opposition with discussions between counterparts. As a consequence, Priti Patel is not invited anymore to the meeting on Sunday.’

    https://twitter.com/simonjonesnews/status/1464130103630344197?s=21

    So the French are still trying to play politics, rather than conduct talks with the intention of stopping people drowning in the Channel.
    To be frank, it looks as though our PM is the one playing politics, setting out a suggestion which he knew in advance would be unacceptable.

    Most, if not all, of those presently waiting in N. France would be an asset to this country, although, of course we have, in concert with the EU, to do 'something' about the continued drift of people to Northern and Western Europe.

    Johnson needs another row with France to take minds off all his other troubles. The letter he wrote to Macron yesterday was designed to achieve that - and it has succeeded. His only interest is in keeping his voting coalition together. This is the way to do it.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,501
    Sandpit said:

    So the French are still trying to play politics, rather than conduct talks with the intention of stopping people drowning in the Channel.

    nope



  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,236
    MattW said:

    Morning all.

    The Lib Dem policy linked above seems incoherent.

    On the one hand they propose breaking the legs of the current detention system - a judicial decision require d to prolong beyond 3 days, on the second hand to do all kinds of things to open borders, and on the third hand to present themselves as the party of the Nimby and not build houses when we have a very small number of empties.

    It does not add up, Corporal Jones.

    Not sure about the small number of empty houses, given the substantial development going on in this area.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,501
    - the official report into Boris Johnson’s plan for a bridge or tunnel between Northern Ireland and Scotland has just been published

    - tunnel would cost up to £208bn

    - bridge would be up to £335bn
    https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1464137949776384002/photo/1
  • Foxy said:

    I was musing on the classic 1942 film Casablanca the other day. There are several plot strands but perhaps the most interesting is the "letters of transit" stolen by the Peter Lorre character and hidden by Bogarts character Rick, who later passes them on. These stolen documents permit the bearer free travel to neutral Portugal, and then onwards to the USA.

    Is Rick the most celebrated "People Trafficker" in movie history? And should the Lazlos had to claim asylum in Portugal rather than the USA?

    Casablanca (in the film at least) was indeed full of people traffickers. They are not portrayed as noble but as vultures, exploiting the vulnerable. Remember the scene with the Bulgarian couple and the roulette game? Captain Renault was not a nice person.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,236
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    French Interior Ministry: ‘We consider Boris Johnson’s public letter unacceptable and in opposition with discussions between counterparts. As a consequence, Priti Patel is not invited anymore to the meeting on Sunday.’

    https://twitter.com/simonjonesnews/status/1464130103630344197?s=21

    So the French are still trying to play politics, rather than conduct talks with the intention of stopping people drowning in the Channel.
    To be frank, it looks as though our PM is the one playing politics, setting out a suggestion which he knew in advance would be unacceptable.

    Most, if not all, of those presently waiting in N. France would be an asset to this country, although, of course we have, in concert with the EU, to do 'something' about the continued drift of people to Northern and Western Europe.
    Boris is now stuck with an impossible situation, media cameras are focussed on something he can’t thing, which means the only outcomes for him is to look useless. The French know what Boris is asking for is impossible, but it will be interesting to hear the exact French reply to see how much they want to help Boris out (will it be nope, it’s your problem or something else).

    The truth is we don’t know what the aim and pull into Britain is. If it’s to get work via the black economy nothing is going to stop the migration flow, if it’s to claim asylum a method within France is required.

    As for your final point The drift North and West really hasn’t started yet
    The drift North and West has been going on for many millennia. Just changes speed sometimes.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,501
    ...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,501
    If you tried to write a letter designed to irritate France, this would be it:
    1 self-congratulate and take moral high ground
    2 make letter public, to enhance 1
    3 tell France and EU to do more to patrol a border that the UK left EU in order to regain control over

    Breathtaking


    https://twitter.com/PedderSophie/status/1464139057915650061
  • Putting all the politics aside, if you stand on the coast at or near Calais on a clear day, England will seem so close that you could almost touch it. You won't see the 22 miles of sea, the huge container ships, the waves or any of the other dangers, you will see the white cliffs of Dover and whatever the obstacles you'll think you can make it. That makes it very different from getting in a boat and trying to get to Australia and it's why we co-operation with France and others is so important if we want to tackle the problems seriously.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    Pulpstar said:

    12 GW being generated by wind of 32 GW total demand. It's not good enough, it ought to be at least double that when there's a moderate storm about.

    In the longer run what we would actually need is something like 45GW (to pick a number at random) and the capacity to store the surplus efficiently for use when it is not windy. Whilst 24 GW would clearly be an improvement it too is not sufficient. Still, at least our gas consumption is temporarily reduced.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,609

    Foxy said:

    I was musing on the classic 1942 film Casablanca the other day. There are several plot strands but perhaps the most interesting is the "letters of transit" stolen by the Peter Lorre character and hidden by Bogarts character Rick, who later passes them on. These stolen documents permit the bearer free travel to neutral Portugal, and then onwards to the USA.

    Is Rick the most celebrated "People Trafficker" in movie history? And should the Lazlos had to claim asylum in Portugal rather than the USA?

    Casablanca (in the film at least) was indeed full of people traffickers. They are not portrayed as noble but as vultures, exploiting the vulnerable. Remember the scene with the Bulgarian couple and the roulette game? Captain Renault was not a nice person.
    Certainly Rick was depicted as noble, and the refugees vulnerable.

    What do we think happened to those vulnerable would be refugees without the letters of transit?
  • Scott_xP said:

    If you tried to write a letter designed to irritate France, this would be it:
    1 self-congratulate and take moral high ground
    2 make letter public, to enhance 1
    3 tell France and EU to do more to patrol a border that the UK left EU in order to regain control over

    Breathtaking


    https://twitter.com/PedderSophie/status/1464139057915650061

    Why anyone would expect anything more from this PM is beyond me. He has had an incredibly difficult fortnight. Now he has an opportunity to deliver a further conflict with the French to his base. Of course he is going to take it. And it will work like a charm.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,772
    Fascinating vox pop on R4 with a potential migrant in France. He wants to come to the UK because he likes football and Manchester United in particular. If we take that comment at face value, it underlines the sheer madness of the situation.
  • kingbongokingbongo Posts: 393

    Foxy said:

    I was musing on the classic 1942 film Casablanca the other day. There are several plot strands but perhaps the most interesting is the "letters of transit" stolen by the Peter Lorre character and hidden by Bogarts character Rick, who later passes them on. These stolen documents permit the bearer free travel to neutral Portugal, and then onwards to the USA.

    Is Rick the most celebrated "People Trafficker" in movie history? And should the Lazlos had to claim asylum in Portugal rather than the USA?

    Casablanca (in the film at least) was indeed full of people traffickers. They are not portrayed as noble but as vultures, exploiting the vulnerable. Remember the scene with the Bulgarian couple and the roulette game? Captain Renault was not a nice person.
    ALso the 'letters of transit' were a MacGuffin - no such things existed. If you think about it for more than a minute you'll realise the idea of them is ridiculous but they were needed for the plot.

    As for who is playing politics with the migrant crisis - the politicians are! Why? because it's a political problem; when the UK points out the weaknesses in the French approach they naturally respond by pointing out the unfairness of the characterisation and quickly follow up with some naked grandstanding of their own - this is actually as it should be - if voters want the issue handled they need to choose politicians who will do that. We spend far too much time wanting "independent" (ie unaccountable) bodies, "objective" assessments. For better or worse we live in democracies - the voters need to own that and not keep moaning about issues being 'political'.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,853

    Scott_xP said:

    If you tried to write a letter designed to irritate France, this would be it:
    1 self-congratulate and take moral high ground
    2 make letter public, to enhance 1
    3 tell France and EU to do more to patrol a border that the UK left EU in order to regain control over

    Breathtaking


    https://twitter.com/PedderSophie/status/1464139057915650061

    Why anyone would expect anything more from this PM is beyond me. He has had an incredibly difficult fortnight. Now he has an opportunity to deliver a further conflict with the French to his base. Of course he is going to take it. And it will work like a charm.

    It's not creating a conflict, it's just telling France that we aren't going to do anything.

    As we all know it's an impossible situation which means Boris has to blame France as that's the only optioon he has left.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,995

    Sandpit said:

    French Interior Ministry: ‘We consider Boris Johnson’s public letter unacceptable and in opposition with discussions between counterparts. As a consequence, Priti Patel is not invited anymore to the meeting on Sunday.’

    https://twitter.com/simonjonesnews/status/1464130103630344197?s=21

    So the French are still trying to play politics, rather than conduct talks with the intention of stopping people drowning in the Channel.
    To be frank, it looks as though our PM is the one playing politics, setting out a suggestion which he knew in advance would be unacceptable.

    Most, if not all, of those presently waiting in N. France would be an asset to this country, although, of course we have, in concert with the EU, to do 'something' about the continued drift of people to Northern and Western Europe.

    Johnson needs another row with France to take minds off all his other troubles. The letter he wrote to Macron yesterday was designed to achieve that - and it has succeeded. His only interest is in keeping his voting coalition together. This is the way to do it.

    There is nothing that brings the Johnson coalition together more than a spat with France. Even the Tory remainers who are still loyal to the PM will feel strongly about it, so it is even a better trigger than Brexit.

    This is all made worse by the coming French election, as a UK-France spat plays equally well for Macron in France.

    With these two in charge we will always get bouts of grandstanding and tension in public, hopefully things are calmer in private but each public spat makes that harder to maintain.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,176
    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If you tried to write a letter designed to irritate France, this would be it:
    1 self-congratulate and take moral high ground
    2 make letter public, to enhance 1
    3 tell France and EU to do more to patrol a border that the UK left EU in order to regain control over

    Breathtaking


    https://twitter.com/PedderSophie/status/1464139057915650061

    Why anyone would expect anything more from this PM is beyond me. He has had an incredibly difficult fortnight. Now he has an opportunity to deliver a further conflict with the French to his base. Of course he is going to take it. And it will work like a charm.

    It's not creating a conflict, it's just telling France that we aren't going to do anything.

    As we all know it's an impossible situation which means Boris has to blame France as that's the only optioon he has left.
    I wonder what people think the UK can do when the French police stand and watch the boats leave France.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,853
    edited November 26

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If you tried to write a letter designed to irritate France, this would be it:
    1 self-congratulate and take moral high ground
    2 make letter public, to enhance 1
    3 tell France and EU to do more to patrol a border that the UK left EU in order to regain control over

    Breathtaking


    https://twitter.com/PedderSophie/status/1464139057915650061

    Why anyone would expect anything more from this PM is beyond me. He has had an incredibly difficult fortnight. Now he has an opportunity to deliver a further conflict with the French to his base. Of course he is going to take it. And it will work like a charm.

    It's not creating a conflict, it's just telling France that we aren't going to do anything.

    As we all know it's an impossible situation which means Boris has to blame France as that's the only optioon he has left.
    I wonder what people think the UK can do when the French police stand and watch the boats leave France.
    As I said yesterday.

    2 French policemen encounter 30 odd migrants trying to launch a boat - no matter what people say neither policeman is going to do much when you are out numbered 15 to one.

    RCS1000 was right yesterday, we need to do more about illegal workers (and that will require counter intuitive items like automatic "right to remain" for reporting employers using illegal migrants).
  • stjohnstjohn Posts: 1,336
    Scott_xP said:

    - the official report into Boris Johnson’s plan for a bridge or tunnel between Northern Ireland and Scotland has just been published

    - tunnel would cost up to £208bn

    - bridge would be up to £335bn
    https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1464137949776384002/photo/1

    ... and the official report cost? £365bn ???
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,772

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If you tried to write a letter designed to irritate France, this would be it:
    1 self-congratulate and take moral high ground
    2 make letter public, to enhance 1
    3 tell France and EU to do more to patrol a border that the UK left EU in order to regain control over

    Breathtaking


    https://twitter.com/PedderSophie/status/1464139057915650061

    Why anyone would expect anything more from this PM is beyond me. He has had an incredibly difficult fortnight. Now he has an opportunity to deliver a further conflict with the French to his base. Of course he is going to take it. And it will work like a charm.

    It's not creating a conflict, it's just telling France that we aren't going to do anything.

    As we all know it's an impossible situation which means Boris has to blame France as that's the only optioon he has left.
    I wonder what people think the UK can do when the French police stand and watch the boats leave France.
    Avoid cheap political point scoring for domestic purposes and find ways to work together. That’s a good place to start.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,932
    Sandpit said:

    There are only two ways to stop the migrant crossings. Either the French take action against the traffickers (ha ha), or the British address the issue from the demand side. It’s not a popular solution, but Australia showed how to do it.

    The other thing we should do is invest in the development of the Sahel using our overseas development budget.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,176
    Jonathan said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If you tried to write a letter designed to irritate France, this would be it:
    1 self-congratulate and take moral high ground
    2 make letter public, to enhance 1
    3 tell France and EU to do more to patrol a border that the UK left EU in order to regain control over

    Breathtaking


    https://twitter.com/PedderSophie/status/1464139057915650061

    Why anyone would expect anything more from this PM is beyond me. He has had an incredibly difficult fortnight. Now he has an opportunity to deliver a further conflict with the French to his base. Of course he is going to take it. And it will work like a charm.

    It's not creating a conflict, it's just telling France that we aren't going to do anything.

    As we all know it's an impossible situation which means Boris has to blame France as that's the only optioon he has left.
    I wonder what people think the UK can do when the French police stand and watch the boats leave France.
    Avoid cheap political point scoring for domestic purposes and find ways to work together. That’s a good place to start.
    Work together? This has been happening for years and France is letting it happen.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,476
    Foxy said:

    I was musing on the classic 1942 film Casablanca the other day. There are several plot strands but perhaps the most interesting is the "letters of transit" stolen by the Peter Lorre character and hidden by Bogarts character Rick, who later passes them on. These stolen documents permit the bearer free travel to neutral Portugal, and then onwards to the USA.

    Is Rick the most celebrated "People Trafficker" in movie history? And should the Lazlos had to claim asylum in Portugal rather than the USA?

    Not many days go by that I don't muse on Casablanca, the greatest film ever made. It's one of those films that covers so many themes and whose humanity and heart is so deep that it has something to say on pretty much anything you care to think of. Certainly it has a message on refugees and migration. Not just the Bulgarian couple escaping oppression there ("the devil has the people by the throat") who Rick rescues from the awful moral compromise they are almost forced into in order to escape, but the elderly Austrian couple speaking only English ("what watch? Such much!") in preparation for their trip, who Carl reassures will "get along beautiful in America".
    The greatest irony of the film is that the actor who plays Major Strasser, the Nazi baddie, was himself a refugee from Nazi Germany. Indeed, the whole film was made by European emigrees, which perhaps explains why it is so sympathetic to the plight of refugees.
  • eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If you tried to write a letter designed to irritate France, this would be it:
    1 self-congratulate and take moral high ground
    2 make letter public, to enhance 1
    3 tell France and EU to do more to patrol a border that the UK left EU in order to regain control over

    Breathtaking


    https://twitter.com/PedderSophie/status/1464139057915650061

    Why anyone would expect anything more from this PM is beyond me. He has had an incredibly difficult fortnight. Now he has an opportunity to deliver a further conflict with the French to his base. Of course he is going to take it. And it will work like a charm.

    It's not creating a conflict, it's just telling France that we aren't going to do anything.

    As we all know it's an impossible situation which means Boris has to blame France as that's the only optioon he has left.

    There are things that can be done to mitigate things. These would include much closer cooperation with the EU generally and the UK taking more asylum seekers. It won't solve the problem - only peace and stability in the refugees' home countries will do that - but it may make it more manageable. But for this government, constantly looking over its shoulder at Nigel Farage, it is politically impossible to do.

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,387
    edited November 26
    eek said:

    Those applying for asylum in the UK should apply in the first safe country they reach. Those coming in boats across the channel should not be granted asylum under any circumstances whatsoever

    Sadly that isn’t what international law says..
    It is a curious situation when International Law can require something very specific of country X to which people persecuted by state Y are fleeing, without making requirements of state Y to stop it happening in the first place.

    The insolubility of all this suggests we are looking in the wrong place. The quality of governance in a number of countries, all members of the UN and other international bodies, is the problem.

    The right to refuge should be very specific, time and place limited and with an international UN led plan to return all refugees home within a limited period.

    A planet in which hundreds of millions, even billions, of people have a right to choose where else they live because of the quality of state governance is unsustainable.

    David Miliband is the very man to lead this project.

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,387
    edit
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,932

    Sandpit said:

    French Interior Ministry: ‘We consider Boris Johnson’s public letter unacceptable and in opposition with discussions between counterparts. As a consequence, Priti Patel is not invited anymore to the meeting on Sunday.’

    https://twitter.com/simonjonesnews/status/1464130103630344197?s=21

    So the French are still trying to play politics, rather than conduct talks with the intention of stopping people drowning in the Channel.
    To be frank, it looks as though our PM is the one playing politics, setting out a suggestion which he knew in advance would be unacceptable.

    Most, if not all, of those presently waiting in N. France would be an asset to this country, although, of course we have, in concert with the EU, to do 'something' about the continued drift of people to Northern and Western Europe.
    On what basis are you making the judgement in the second paragraph? (The one about being an asset to the country). Interested in your evidentiary support.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,501
    Today I am starting to publish a detailed, annotated record of the lies, falsehoods and misleading statements made by Boris Johnson and colleagues dating back to his appointment as prime minister in July 2019. They are available here:

    https://boris-johnson-lies.com/

    We've put another dozen posts up overnight.

    https://boris-johnson-lies.com

    https://twitter.com/OborneTweets/status/1464146981136261122
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,632
    Scott_xP said:

    - the official report into Boris Johnson’s plan for a bridge or tunnel between Northern Ireland and Scotland has just been published

    - tunnel would cost up to £208bn

    - bridge would be up to £335bn
    https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1464137949776384002/photo/1

    Have to be the tunnel version then looking at those numbers.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,632
    Markets falling.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 2,869
    Scott_xP said:

    - the official report into Boris Johnson’s plan for a bridge or tunnel between Northern Ireland and Scotland has just been published

    - tunnel would cost up to £208bn

    - bridge would be up to £335bn
    https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/1464137949776384002/photo/1

    I suggest we do a combination tunnel and bridge (via Rathlin Island, perhaps?) and then attempt to offset the cost through a set of internationally popular TV crime series.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,992
    algarkirk said:

    eek said:

    Those applying for asylum in the UK should apply in the first safe country they reach. Those coming in boats across the channel should not be granted asylum under any circumstances whatsoever

    Sadly that isn’t what international law says..
    It is a curious situation when International Law can require something very specific of country X to which people persecuted by state Y are fleeing, without making requirements of state Y to stop it happening in the first place.

    The insolubility of all this suggests we are looking in the wrong place. The quality of governance in a number of countries, all members of the UN and other international bodies, is the problem.

    The right to refuge should be very specific, time and place limited and with an international UN led plan to return all refugees home within a limited period.

    A planet in which hundreds of millions, even billions, of people have a right to choose where else they live because of the quality of state governance is unsustainable.

    David Miliband is the very man to lead this project.
    Thunderbirds Are Go!
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,387
    DavidL said:

    On immigration the relevant factors to me seem to be:

    (1) that the proposition that a refugee who reaches a safe country A has no right to seek asylum in a further country B but is obliged to make their application in A is simply wrong in fact and law. It is incompatible with the UN Convention on refugees.

    (2) The Dublin Convention sought, despite that, to require the receiving Member States to process the application. The logic of this, such as it was, was that once a refugee was given asylum within the EU freedom of movement entitled them to go anywhere within it. The right of the refugee given by the UN Convention was accordingly not prejudiced.

    (3) The EU refused to continue the Dublin Convention with the UK on Brexit. That was their right because the scenario had changed. Determination of the right to asylum in, say, Greece, no longer gave that person freedom of movement to the UK.

    (4) The proposition that France has any obligation to process these refugees and, if appropriate, to grant them asylum in the EU is therefore wrong. Similarly, if they do make the UK or make an application to our authorities we have duties under the UN Convention to determine their application to us.

    (5) The UK government is therefore being deliberately misleading in at least two respects. Firstly, their argument that the French are somehow failing in their duty has no basis. They have no duty to determine the right of these
    refugees if no application is made to them. Secondly, even if they did, this would not abrogate our duty to make our determination on the merits of the refugee's case should an application be made to us.

    There are much broader questions as to whether the UN Convention is fit for purpose in circumstances where very large number of people have become much more mobile; where countries may have legitimate concerns about whether these refugees carry dangerous illnesses or have malicious intent and whether the right to asylum needs to be curtailed. These are very difficult questions to answer. But the way the story of these refugees in boats is being portrayed by both our government and our media is simply misleading.

    Broadly agree, but all this points up is that the UN Convention is out of date.

    The UN has been around a long time. By now the right to refugee status should be rare, specific and time limited. It is not realistic, decades after first being made, that hundreds of millions of citizens of countries who are UN members should have an uncontestable claim upon the goodwill of other UN members without the UN having parallel jurisdiction over the states from which people are fleeing.

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,995
    Jonathan said:

    Fascinating vox pop on R4 with a potential migrant in France. He wants to come to the UK because he likes football and Manchester United in particular. If we take that comment at face value, it underlines the sheer madness of the situation.

    Clearly culture and familiarity, which definitely includes football as much as music or film is a big part of why some migrants want to come here. But how often do we in the UK hear the motivations of migrants who want to live in Germany, USA, Sweden or Spain ahead of the UK?

    There are millions of migrants each year, some of whom want to come to the UK, some for trivial reasons. None of that should be surprising or considered mad when you start with a global pool of many millions.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,579
    Jonathan said:

    Fascinating vox pop on R4 with a potential migrant in France. He wants to come to the UK because he likes football and Manchester United in particular. If we take that comment at face value, it underlines the sheer madness of the situation.

    Just like all the other Man Utd fans who don't come from Manchester... :D
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,501
    So, French seem to have come to same conclusion as majority of British public https://twitter.com/paul__johnson/status/1464149412083650565/photo/1
  • eekeek Posts: 15,853
    edited November 26

    Jonathan said:

    Fascinating vox pop on R4 with a potential migrant in France. He wants to come to the UK because he likes football and Manchester United in particular. If we take that comment at face value, it underlines the sheer madness of the situation.

    Clearly culture and familiarity, which definitely includes football as much as music or film is a big part of why some migrants want to come here. But how often do we in the UK hear the motivations of migrants who want to live in Germany, USA, Sweden or Spain ahead of the UK?

    There are millions of migrants each year, some of whom want to come to the UK, some for trivial reasons. None of that should be surprising or considered mad when you start with a global pool of many millions.
    A separate and more important question.

    This person was from Eritrea - exactly what is he fleeing from. It's not Syria, Iraq or Oman... The Ethiopian Eritrea war finished 21 years ago.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 40,280
    algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    On immigration the relevant factors to me seem to be:

    (1) that the proposition that a refugee who reaches a safe country A has no right to seek asylum in a further country B but is obliged to make their application in A is simply wrong in fact and law. It is incompatible with the UN Convention on refugees.

    (2) The Dublin Convention sought, despite that, to require the receiving Member States to process the application. The logic of this, such as it was, was that once a refugee was given asylum within the EU freedom of movement entitled them to go anywhere within it. The right of the refugee given by the UN Convention was accordingly not prejudiced.

    (3) The EU refused to continue the Dublin Convention with the UK on Brexit. That was their right because the scenario had changed. Determination of the right to asylum in, say, Greece, no longer gave that person freedom of movement to the UK.

    (4) The proposition that France has any obligation to process these refugees and, if appropriate, to grant them asylum in the EU is therefore wrong. Similarly, if they do make the UK or make an application to our authorities we have duties under the UN Convention to determine their application to us.

    (5) The UK government is therefore being deliberately misleading in at least two respects. Firstly, their argument that the French are somehow failing in their duty has no basis. They have no duty to determine the right of these
    refugees if no application is made to them. Secondly, even if they did, this would not abrogate our duty to make our determination on the merits of the refugee's case should an application be made to us.

    There are much broader questions as to whether the UN Convention is fit for purpose in circumstances where very large number of people have become much more mobile; where countries may have legitimate concerns about whether these refugees carry dangerous illnesses or have malicious intent and whether the right to asylum needs to be curtailed. These are very difficult questions to answer. But the way the story of these refugees in boats is being portrayed by both our government and our media is simply misleading.

    Broadly agree, but all this points up is that the UN Convention is out of date.

    The UN has been around a long time. By now the right to refugee status should be rare, specific and time limited. It is not realistic, decades after first being made, that hundreds of millions of citizens of countries who are UN members should have an uncontestable claim upon the goodwill of other UN members without the UN having parallel jurisdiction over the states from which people are fleeing.

    Indeed. The UN Convention was driven by guilt about the difficulties that Jews had in escaping Nazi Germany. That was both an extreme circumstance and a specific group within a developed state. It really did not contemplate a world of failed states, religious turmoil and general lunacy such as we currently see in Afghanistan. But this is the issue we have to grapple with (in conjunction with other countries around the world). Silly tit for tat bickering with the French is simply not relevant to this.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,516
    edited November 26
    Scott_xP said:

    So, French seem to have come to same conclusion as majority of British public https://twitter.com/paul__johnson/status/1464149412083650565/photo/1

    Meanwhile 45% of French voters will now vote for Le Pen in the Presidential runoff next year in a new Elabe poll, up 3% on the last poll and more even than the 43.6% of British voters who voted for Boris in 2019. Macron and Le Pen now well clear of other candidates in the first round too.
    https://twitter.com/2FRsur3/status/1464145836292595741?s=20
    https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1463977292108079111?s=20

    So we don't need too many lectures on how sophisticated and liberal the French are, certainly when it comes to border control
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,579
    Jonathan said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If you tried to write a letter designed to irritate France, this would be it:
    1 self-congratulate and take moral high ground
    2 make letter public, to enhance 1
    3 tell France and EU to do more to patrol a border that the UK left EU in order to regain control over

    Breathtaking


    https://twitter.com/PedderSophie/status/1464139057915650061

    Why anyone would expect anything more from this PM is beyond me. He has had an incredibly difficult fortnight. Now he has an opportunity to deliver a further conflict with the French to his base. Of course he is going to take it. And it will work like a charm.

    It's not creating a conflict, it's just telling France that we aren't going to do anything.

    As we all know it's an impossible situation which means Boris has to blame France as that's the only optioon he has left.
    I wonder what people think the UK can do when the French police stand and watch the boats leave France.
    Avoid cheap political point scoring for domestic purposes and find ways to work together. That’s a good place to start.
    Absolutely. And yet we are not the only ones doing this. Remember the hoopla about AZ earlier in the year from our European friends and allies. We all need to be better.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,579
    Scott_xP said:

    Today I am starting to publish a detailed, annotated record of the lies, falsehoods and misleading statements made by Boris Johnson and colleagues dating back to his appointment as prime minister in July 2019. They are available here:

    https://boris-johnson-lies.com/

    We've put another dozen posts up overnight.

    https://boris-johnson-lies.com

    https://twitter.com/OborneTweets/status/1464146981136261122

    Before being too sanctimonious about the current liar in No 10, remember that Oborne wrote "The Rise of Political Lying", which made much of a certain T. Blair, a previous No 10 incumbent...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 12,743
    Sandpit said:

    French Interior Ministry: ‘We consider Boris Johnson’s public letter unacceptable and in opposition with discussions between counterparts. As a consequence, Priti Patel is not invited anymore to the meeting on Sunday.’

    https://twitter.com/simonjonesnews/status/1464130103630344197?s=21

    So the French are still trying to play politics, rather than conduct talks with the intention of stopping people drowning in the Channel.
    Hmmm, a spat with the plucky English does play well for Macron, but equally Johnson has had three awful weeks and tweaking the French nose is supremely effective politics. His letter (what is it with Johnson and letters?) does just that. Absolutely superb if cynical campaigning from the big man.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,772

    Jonathan said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If you tried to write a letter designed to irritate France, this would be it:
    1 self-congratulate and take moral high ground
    2 make letter public, to enhance 1
    3 tell France and EU to do more to patrol a border that the UK left EU in order to regain control over

    Breathtaking


    https://twitter.com/PedderSophie/status/1464139057915650061

    Why anyone would expect anything more from this PM is beyond me. He has had an incredibly difficult fortnight. Now he has an opportunity to deliver a further conflict with the French to his base. Of course he is going to take it. And it will work like a charm.

    It's not creating a conflict, it's just telling France that we aren't going to do anything.

    As we all know it's an impossible situation which means Boris has to blame France as that's the only optioon he has left.
    I wonder what people think the UK can do when the French police stand and watch the boats leave France.
    Avoid cheap political point scoring for domestic purposes and find ways to work together. That’s a good place to start.
    Absolutely. And yet we are not the only ones doing this. Remember the hoopla about AZ earlier in the year from our European friends and allies. We all need to be better.
    Nationalism is bullshit whichever side of the channel it comes from. One of my worries about Brexit was that it would revive this historic English-French nonsense. It's depressing that politicians have seized upon this so readily. They need to grow up.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,772

    Jonathan said:

    Fascinating vox pop on R4 with a potential migrant in France. He wants to come to the UK because he likes football and Manchester United in particular. If we take that comment at face value, it underlines the sheer madness of the situation.

    Just like all the other Man Utd fans who don't come from Manchester... :D

    The interview didn't state if the person offered managerial skills.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,995
    eek said:

    Jonathan said:

    Fascinating vox pop on R4 with a potential migrant in France. He wants to come to the UK because he likes football and Manchester United in particular. If we take that comment at face value, it underlines the sheer madness of the situation.

    Clearly culture and familiarity, which definitely includes football as much as music or film is a big part of why some migrants want to come here. But how often do we in the UK hear the motivations of migrants who want to live in Germany, USA, Sweden or Spain ahead of the UK?

    There are millions of migrants each year, some of whom want to come to the UK, some for trivial reasons. None of that should be surprising or considered mad when you start with a global pool of many millions.
    A separate and more important question.

    This person was from Eritrea - exactly what is he fleeing from. It's not Syria, Iraq or Oman... The Ethiopian Eritrea war finished 21 years ago.
    https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/eritrea
  • eekeek Posts: 15,853

    eek said:

    Jonathan said:

    Fascinating vox pop on R4 with a potential migrant in France. He wants to come to the UK because he likes football and Manchester United in particular. If we take that comment at face value, it underlines the sheer madness of the situation.

    Clearly culture and familiarity, which definitely includes football as much as music or film is a big part of why some migrants want to come here. But how often do we in the UK hear the motivations of migrants who want to live in Germany, USA, Sweden or Spain ahead of the UK?

    There are millions of migrants each year, some of whom want to come to the UK, some for trivial reasons. None of that should be surprising or considered mad when you start with a global pool of many millions.
    A separate and more important question.

    This person was from Eritrea - exactly what is he fleeing from. It's not Syria, Iraq or Oman... The Ethiopian Eritrea war finished 21 years ago.
    https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/eritrea
    Yep there are valid reasons there.
  • glwglw Posts: 7,776
    edited November 26
    I've just been listening to Crystal Palace chairman Steve Parish on the radio, and if he is right it does sound like the government are about to screw-up football.

    Parish really didn't think much of the government's plans, which he thought were either unworkable or likely to be counter-productive. And he felt the government had overlooked some big issues, like FIFA/UEFA corruption and ineptitude, and a visa system that penalises signing players from overseas before they have reached a "big league" thus draining money from the UK to our rivals.

    It's hard to say whether or not Parish is right, but it sure sounded like a demolition of government policy.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,853
    edited November 26
    Following Boris's letter to France, France has cancelled Priti's meeting

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10245249/France-CANCELS-meeting-Priti-Patel-wake-deaths-27-migrants.html

    nice to see UK / French political relationships at their usual levels.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,236
    Charles said:

    Sandpit said:

    French Interior Ministry: ‘We consider Boris Johnson’s public letter unacceptable and in opposition with discussions between counterparts. As a consequence, Priti Patel is not invited anymore to the meeting on Sunday.’

    https://twitter.com/simonjonesnews/status/1464130103630344197?s=21

    So the French are still trying to play politics, rather than conduct talks with the intention of stopping people drowning in the Channel.
    To be frank, it looks as though our PM is the one playing politics, setting out a suggestion which he knew in advance would be unacceptable.

    Most, if not all, of those presently waiting in N. France would be an asset to this country, although, of course we have, in concert with the EU, to do 'something' about the continued drift of people to Northern and Western Europe.
    On what basis are you making the judgement in the second paragraph? (The one about being an asset to the country). Interested in your evidentiary support.
    Young or relatively young people keen to to provide better lives for themselves and their dependents. And prepared to go through considerable difficulties to do so.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,454
    algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    On immigration the relevant factors to me seem to be:

    (1) that the proposition that a refugee who reaches a safe country A has no right to seek asylum in a further country B but is obliged to make their application in A is simply wrong in fact and law. It is incompatible with the UN Convention on refugees.

    (2) The Dublin Convention sought, despite that, to require the receiving Member States to process the application. The logic of this, such as it was, was that once a refugee was given asylum within the EU freedom of movement entitled them to go anywhere within it. The right of the refugee given by the UN Convention was accordingly not prejudiced.

    (3) The EU refused to continue the Dublin Convention with the UK on Brexit. That was their right because the scenario had changed. Determination of the right to asylum in, say, Greece, no longer gave that person freedom of movement to the UK.

    (4) The proposition that France has any obligation to process these refugees and, if appropriate, to grant them asylum in the EU is therefore wrong. Similarly, if they do make the UK or make an application to our authorities we have duties under the UN Convention to determine their application to us.

    (5) The UK government is therefore being deliberately misleading in at least two respects. Firstly, their argument that the French are somehow failing in their duty has no basis. They have no duty to determine the right of these
    refugees if no application is made to them. Secondly, even if they did, this would not abrogate our duty to make our determination on the merits of the refugee's case should an application be made to us.

    There are much broader questions as to whether the UN Convention is fit for purpose in circumstances where very large number of people have become much more mobile; where countries may have legitimate concerns about whether these refugees carry dangerous illnesses or have malicious intent and whether the right to asylum needs to be curtailed. These are very difficult questions to answer. But the way the story of these refugees in boats is being portrayed by both our government and our media is simply misleading.

    Broadly agree, but all this points up is that the UN Convention is out of date.

    The UN has been around a long time. By now the right to refugee status should be rare, specific and time limited. It is not realistic, decades after first being made, that hundreds of millions of citizens of countries who are UN members should have an uncontestable claim upon the goodwill of other UN members without the UN having parallel jurisdiction over the states from which people are fleeing.

    I don't agree with you on this, but even if you're right, revising the UN treaty is a project that would take years. It doesn't address the current problem.

    What does? I'm not sure, but making legal applications from abroad easier instead of harder would be a start. If we say "We might well grant you asylum but you have to put a foot on UK soil before we'll consider it" is absolutely an invitation to try to cross the Channel.
  • kingbongokingbongo Posts: 393

    Scott_xP said:

    Today I am starting to publish a detailed, annotated record of the lies, falsehoods and misleading statements made by Boris Johnson and colleagues dating back to his appointment as prime minister in July 2019. They are available here:

    https://boris-johnson-lies.com/

    We've put another dozen posts up overnight.

    https://boris-johnson-lies.com

    https://twitter.com/OborneTweets/status/1464146981136261122

    Before being too sanctimonious about the current liar in No 10, remember that Oborne wrote "The Rise of Political Lying", which made much of a certain T. Blair, a previous No 10 incumbent...
    Oborne is was a shill for Putin, and an Assad fanboi - he's a curious person to talk about other people's lies
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,454

    Foxy said:

    I was musing on the classic 1942 film Casablanca the other day. There are several plot strands but perhaps the most interesting is the "letters of transit" stolen by the Peter Lorre character and hidden by Bogarts character Rick, who later passes them on. These stolen documents permit the bearer free travel to neutral Portugal, and then onwards to the USA.

    Is Rick the most celebrated "People Trafficker" in movie history? And should the Lazlos had to claim asylum in Portugal rather than the USA?

    Not many days go by that I don't muse on Casablanca, the greatest film ever made. It's one of those films that covers so many themes and whose humanity and heart is so deep that it has something to say on pretty much anything you care to think of. Certainly it has a message on refugees and migration. Not just the Bulgarian couple escaping oppression there ("the devil has the people by the throat") who Rick rescues from the awful moral compromise they are almost forced into in order to escape, but the elderly Austrian couple speaking only English ("what watch? Such much!") in preparation for their trip, who Carl reassures will "get along beautiful in America".
    The greatest irony of the film is that the actor who plays Major Strasser, the Nazi baddie, was himself a refugee from Nazi Germany. Indeed, the whole film was made by European emigrees, which perhaps explains why it is so sympathetic to the plight of refugees.
    Absolutely, and very well put.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,772
    edited November 26

    algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    On immigration the relevant factors to me seem to be:

    (1) that the proposition that a refugee who reaches a safe country A has no right to seek asylum in a further country B but is obliged to make their application in A is simply wrong in fact and law. It is incompatible with the UN Convention on refugees.

    (2) The Dublin Convention sought, despite that, to require the receiving Member States to process the application. The logic of this, such as it was, was that once a refugee was given asylum within the EU freedom of movement entitled them to go anywhere within it. The right of the refugee given by the UN Convention was accordingly not prejudiced.

    (3) The EU refused to continue the Dublin Convention with the UK on Brexit. That was their right because the scenario had changed. Determination of the right to asylum in, say, Greece, no longer gave that person freedom of movement to the UK.

    (4) The proposition that France has any obligation to process these refugees and, if appropriate, to grant them asylum in the EU is therefore wrong. Similarly, if they do make the UK or make an application to our authorities we have duties under the UN Convention to determine their application to us.

    (5) The UK government is therefore being deliberately misleading in at least two respects. Firstly, their argument that the French are somehow failing in their duty has no basis. They have no duty to determine the right of these
    refugees if no application is made to them. Secondly, even if they did, this would not abrogate our duty to make our determination on the merits of the refugee's case should an application be made to us.

    There are much broader questions as to whether the UN Convention is fit for purpose in circumstances where very large number of people have become much more mobile; where countries may have legitimate concerns about whether these refugees carry dangerous illnesses or have malicious intent and whether the right to asylum needs to be curtailed. These are very difficult questions to answer. But the way the story of these refugees in boats is being portrayed by both our government and our media is simply misleading.

    Broadly agree, but all this points up is that the UN Convention is out of date.

    The UN has been around a long time. By now the right to refugee status should be rare, specific and time limited. It is not realistic, decades after first being made, that hundreds of millions of citizens of countries who are UN members should have an uncontestable claim upon the goodwill of other UN members without the UN having parallel jurisdiction over the states from which people are fleeing.

    I don't agree with you on this, but even if you're right, revising the UN treaty is a project that would take years. It doesn't address the current problem.

    What does? I'm not sure, but making legal applications from abroad easier instead of harder would be a start. If we say "We might well grant you asylum but you have to put a foot on UK soil before we'll consider it" is absolutely an invitation to try to cross the Channel.
    Well quite. The bottom line is could either we or the French have done something to avoid the deaths this week?

    The answer to that question is yes, we could, they could and it would have been even better if we had acted together to avoid what a happened.

    The subsequent response shames us further.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 11,995
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    eek said:

    Scott_xP said:

    If you tried to write a letter designed to irritate France, this would be it:
    1 self-congratulate and take moral high ground
    2 make letter public, to enhance 1
    3 tell France and EU to do more to patrol a border that the UK left EU in order to regain control over

    Breathtaking


    https://twitter.com/PedderSophie/status/1464139057915650061

    Why anyone would expect anything more from this PM is beyond me. He has had an incredibly difficult fortnight. Now he has an opportunity to deliver a further conflict with the French to his base. Of course he is going to take it. And it will work like a charm.

    It's not creating a conflict, it's just telling France that we aren't going to do anything.

    As we all know it's an impossible situation which means Boris has to blame France as that's the only optioon he has left.
    I wonder what people think the UK can do when the French police stand and watch the boats leave France.
    Avoid cheap political point scoring for domestic purposes and find ways to work together. That’s a good place to start.
    Absolutely. And yet we are not the only ones doing this. Remember the hoopla about AZ earlier in the year from our European friends and allies. We all need to be better.
    Nationalism is bullshit whichever side of the channel it comes from. One of my worries about Brexit was that it would revive this historic English-French nonsense. It's depressing that politicians have seized upon this so readily. They need to grow up.
    We also need to educate the electorate better. Because even if somehow Johnson and Macron grew up, someone else would quickly fill the void and realise exploiting tensions between the two countries = more votes and we would be back to square one with different leaders.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,387

    algarkirk said:

    DavidL said:

    On immigration the relevant factors to me seem to be:

    (1) that the proposition that a refugee who reaches a safe country A has no right to seek asylum in a further country B but is obliged to make their application in A is simply wrong in fact and law. It is incompatible with the UN Convention on refugees.

    (2) The Dublin Convention sought, despite that, to require the receiving Member States to process the application. The logic of this, such as it was, was that once a refugee was given asylum within the EU freedom of movement entitled them to go anywhere within it. The right of the refugee given by the UN Convention was accordingly not prejudiced.

    (3) The EU refused to continue the Dublin Convention with the UK on Brexit. That was their right because the scenario had changed. Determination of the right to asylum in, say, Greece, no longer gave that person freedom of movement to the UK.

    (4) The proposition that France has any obligation to process these refugees and, if appropriate, to grant them asylum in the EU is therefore wrong. Similarly, if they do make the UK or make an application to our authorities we have duties under the UN Convention to determine their application to us.

    (5) The UK government is therefore being deliberately misleading in at least two respects. Firstly, their argument that the French are somehow failing in their duty has no basis. They have no duty to determine the right of these
    refugees if no application is made to them. Secondly, even if they did, this would not abrogate our duty to make our determination on the merits of the refugee's case should an application be made to us.

    There are much broader questions as to whether the UN Convention is fit for purpose in circumstances where very large number of people have become much more mobile; where countries may have legitimate concerns about whether these refugees carry dangerous illnesses or have malicious intent and whether the right to asylum needs to be curtailed. These are very difficult questions to answer. But the way the story of these refugees in boats is being portrayed by both our government and our media is simply misleading.

    Broadly agree, but all this points up is that the UN Convention is out of date.

    The UN has been around a long time. By now the right to refugee status should be rare, specific and time limited. It is not realistic, decades after first being made, that hundreds of millions of citizens of countries who are UN members should have an uncontestable claim upon the goodwill of other UN members without the UN having parallel jurisdiction over the states from which people are fleeing.

    I don't agree with you on this, but even if you're right, revising the UN treaty is a project that would take years. It doesn't address the current problem.

    What does? I'm not sure, but making legal applications from abroad easier instead of harder would be a start. If we say "We might well grant you asylum but you have to put a foot on UK soil before we'll consider it" is absolutely an invitation to try to cross the Channel.
    Thanks. Why I am raising the wider issue is that there appears to be an insoluble problem from the political and practical point of view right now. Ludicrous spats between allies - UK and France - on the current presenting issue which have no politically acceptable solutions suggests that there is something wrong with the question.

    An open system of making applications from abroad which would either be so successful that it is domestically unacceptable to voters, or so unsuccessful that it would not solve the boat problem.

    The UN shows a massive disproportion between the duties of receiving states and the non duties of exporting states, all within its own membership.

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,265
    DavidL said:

    Pulpstar said:

    12 GW being generated by wind of 32 GW total demand. It's not good enough, it ought to be at least double that when there's a moderate storm about.

    In the longer run what we would actually need is something like 45GW (to pick a number at random) and the capacity to store the surplus efficiently for use when it is not windy. Whilst 24 GW would clearly be an improvement it too is not sufficient. Still, at least our gas consumption is temporarily reduced.
    Given the increase in electricity consumption implied by electrifying land transport and domestic heating and industry I would think we need to aim for closer to ten times our current wind capacity.

    And add tidal, mini-nukes, interconnectors to Moroccan solar...
Sign In or Register to comment.