Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.
If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.
Democracy finds a way.
You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.
I totally believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it. If people in NI elect a government pledge to holding a referendum on something, they too ought to be able to.
Regrettably as it stands, the people of Northern Ireland haven't been able to elect a government at all, under their perverted PR voting system. If they had FPTP it might be otherwise, but they don't, and it is what it is.
No, you believe that Liz Truss should be able to override the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, even though the UK government previously agreed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would decide whether the Protocol should continue to be applied.
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
It was once in a generation
Amazingly, @kinabalu off of PB does not get to decide when it “feels about right” for Scotland to vote again
It is a generation for a reason. A new generation has grown up, replacing the old voters, it is justifiable therefore to ask them again
And neither do you.
There's at the very least a case, post Brexit (which Scotland didn't vote for, and was promised wouldn't happen if they voted 'No' to independence) for another vote.
If that was the case Yes would now be on 62% in most polls, matching the percentage of Scots who voted Remain, not still 45 to 50%.
In any case it is the UK government and the UK government alone that gets to decide whether or not to grant an indyref2
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.
No. The choice would be to backburner it or shed a ton of votes and lose power. They'd choose the first.
History suggests otherwise.
Oh really?
Yes. The SNP lost a referendum and immediately started agitating for a new one, and have been rewarded electorally. There's a big enough Anglophobic bloc in the Scottish electorate that a third referendum would appeal to.
Brexit happened which was a pretty good justification for them to agitate under.
In Quebec the Parti Quebecois agitated similarly, but once they lost the second referendum the voters got tired of it all and sent them packing. You can only ask the voters so many times before they decide enough is enough and no means no.
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
Most are asylum seekers whose claims - once processed - are granted.
Because they nearly always dump alll ID and when they are asked why they are in Britain they have a plausible reason - gay, Christian, Wicca, whatever - and we are legally obliged to accept them as asylum seekers, We have no way of disproving their stories
If you’ve just come over on a boat and you’re asked why, do you say, Well I was a chef in Isfahan but I thought the wages seemed better in Cheltenham? No, you do not
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.
If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.
Democracy finds a way.
You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.
I totally believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it. If people in NI elect a government pledge to holding a referendum on something, they too ought to be able to.
Regrettably as it stands, the people of Northern Ireland haven't been able to elect a government at all, under their perverted PR voting system. If they had FPTP it might be otherwise, but they don't, and it is what it is.
No, you believe that Liz Truss should be able to override the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, even though the UK government previously agreed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would decide whether the Protocol should continue to be applied.
The people of Northern Ireland haven't got a government, so absolutely it is the UK government's responsibility to legislate in their absence.
If the people of Northern Ireland had elected a government pledged to maintaining the Protocol it might be different, but they didn't.
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
Most are asylum seekers whose claims - once processed - are granted.
Not true.
"The UK offered protection to 14,734 people (including dependants) in 2021, in the form of asylum, humanitarian protection, alternative forms of leave and resettlement. Resettlement accounted for 1,587 of those people (11%); this does not include the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, as the first eligible person was relocated under the scheme on 6 January 2022 (after the period referred to in this publication), and will be included in future releases. The number of people offered protection was 49% higher than the previous year, and similar to levels seen from 2015 to 2018."
"There were 48,540 asylum applications (main applicants only) in the UK in 2021, this is 63% more than the previous year. This is higher than at the peak of the European Migration crisis (36,546 applications in 2015-2016) and the highest number of applications for almost two decades (since 2003)."
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.
If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.
Democracy finds a way.
You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.
I totally believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it. If people in NI elect a government pledge to holding a referendum on something, they too ought to be able to.
Regrettably as it stands, the people of Northern Ireland haven't been able to elect a government at all, under their perverted PR voting system. If they had FPTP it might be otherwise, but they don't, and it is what it is.
Nothing to do with the voting system. Largest parties from each confession are required to form an administration. One of them is sulking.
As is their prerogative under the Belfast Agreement.
I thought protecting the Belfast Agreement was what this was all supposed to be about? Have people forgotten that, the Protocol is meant to be a means to an end, the Belfast Agreement is the higher law and principle here.
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.
If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.
Democracy finds a way.
You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.
I totally believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it. If people in NI elect a government pledge to holding a referendum on something, they too ought to be able to.
Regrettably as it stands, the people of Northern Ireland haven't been able to elect a government at all, under their perverted PR voting system. If they had FPTP it might be otherwise, but they don't, and it is what it is.
No, you believe that Liz Truss should be able to override the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, even though the UK government previously agreed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would decide whether the Protocol should continue to be applied.
Good point - hadn't quite thought of that. Truss is actually destroying the Stormont Optout that Bart had previously proclaimed was a Boris masterstroke.
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.
If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.
Democracy finds a way.
You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.
I totally believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it. If people in NI elect a government pledge to holding a referendum on something, they too ought to be able to.
Regrettably as it stands, the people of Northern Ireland haven't been able to elect a government at all, under their perverted PR voting system. If they had FPTP it might be otherwise, but they don't, and it is what it is.
No, you believe that Liz Truss should be able to override the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, even though the UK government previously agreed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would decide whether the Protocol should continue to be applied.
The people of Northern Ireland haven't got a government, so absolutely it is the UK government's responsibility to legislate in their absence.
If the people of Northern Ireland had elected a government pledged to maintaining the Protocol it might be different, but they didn't.
Sophistry. The majority of voters in Northern Ireland backed parties that support the Protocol and returned a majority of MLAs who also support the Protocol. You are very happy for their democratically expressed views to be ignored by a British government that had previously committed to making those views paramount.
I understand that you will not accept this and that you will find forms of words to justify your blatant hypocrisy, but I just thought it was worth pointing out. You believe in democracy when it suits you. You are happy to see it ignored when it doesn't.
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
It was once in a generation
Amazingly, @kinabalu off of PB does not get to decide when it “feels about right” for Scotland to vote again
It is a generation for a reason. A new generation has grown up, replacing the old voters, it is justifiable therefore to ask them again
And neither do you.
There's at the very least a case, post Brexit (which Scotland didn't vote for, and was promised wouldn't happen if they voted 'No' to independence) for another vote.
The trouble with the Brexit argument is that a YES vote in 2014 would have meant instant SCEXIT, Scotland out of the EU. That was made very clear at the time. Yet it didn’t bother the SNP at all (nor any of their supporters on here)
Yet now we see that Scexit alone would have been a nightmare, PLUS the separation from rUK
Bzzzpt. Fail
All Sturgeon has to do is persuade a majority of UK MPs in the British parliament, and she will get another vote. If her cause is just, she will do that. She will probably have a decent chance after GE 24
it can’t be done any other way. Scottish indy would profoundly affect everyone in the UK, Scots, English, Welsh and NI, so the UK parliament should and must decide
if she goes for a wildcat vote, good luck to her. It would be suicide
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.
If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.
Democracy finds a way.
You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.
I totally believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it. If people in NI elect a government pledge to holding a referendum on something, they too ought to be able to.
Regrettably as it stands, the people of Northern Ireland haven't been able to elect a government at all, under their perverted PR voting system. If they had FPTP it might be otherwise, but they don't, and it is what it is.
No, you believe that Liz Truss should be able to override the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, even though the UK government previously agreed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would decide whether the Protocol should continue to be applied.
Good point - hadn't quite thought of that. Truss is actually destroying the Stormont Optout that Bart had previously proclaimed was a Boris masterstroke.
No she's not, she's changing how the Protocol is being implemented domestically, as she's perfectly entitled to do under domestic law and precedent as already discussed.
If post-changes Stormont decides to terminate the Protocol as per the Stormont Optout, then that would be their prerogative, they still have it.
Just because Stormont has a right to terminate the Protocol if they choose to do so, doesn't deny Parliament the right to change how it is implemented, if it chooses to do so. Both are consistent with each other and Stormont can vote when it votes based upon the Protocol as it is implemented at the time.
Of course Stormont would need to be sitting to even have a vote, something it isn't even doing at present.
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.
If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.
Democracy finds a way.
You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.
I totally believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it. If people in NI elect a government pledge to holding a referendum on something, they too ought to be able to.
Regrettably as it stands, the people of Northern Ireland haven't been able to elect a government at all, under their perverted PR voting system. If they had FPTP it might be otherwise, but they don't, and it is what it is.
No, you believe that Liz Truss should be able to override the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, even though the UK government previously agreed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would decide whether the Protocol should continue to be applied.
The people of Northern Ireland haven't got a government, so absolutely it is the UK government's responsibility to legislate in their absence.
If the people of Northern Ireland had elected a government pledged to maintaining the Protocol it might be different, but they didn't.
Sophistry. The majority of voters in Northern Ireland backed parties that support the Protocol and returned a majority of MLAs who also support the Protocol. You are very happy for their democratically expressed views to be ignored by a British government that had previously committed to making those views paramount.
I understand that you will not accept this and that you will find forms of words to justify your blatant hypocrisy, but I just thought it was worth pointing out. You believe in democracy when it suits you. You are happy to see it ignored when it doesn't.
It doesn't matter what the majority of voters in Northern Ireland backed under the Belfast Agreement, they don't have majoritarian FPTP.
Their democratically expressed views are to be determined by the government they elect and as it stands today, they haven't elected a government, therefore it is impossible to say what they have or have not voted for.
That is democracy under the Belfast Agreement. If you're calling for the scrapping of the Belfast Agreement, and replacing it with First Past the Post majoritarian rule for Northern Ireland then go ahead, but that isn't the system they've got today.
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
It was once in a generation
Amazingly, @kinabalu off of PB does not get to decide when it “feels about right” for Scotland to vote again
It is a generation for a reason. A new generation has grown up, replacing the old voters, it is justifiable therefore to ask them again
And neither do you.
There's at the very least a case, post Brexit (which Scotland didn't vote for, and was promised wouldn't happen if they voted 'No' to independence) for another vote.
The trouble with the Brexit argument is that a YES vote in 2014 would have meant instant SCEXIT, Scotland out of the EU. That was made very clear at the time. Yet it didn’t bother the SNP at all (nor any of their supporters on here)
Yet now we see that Scexit alone would have been a nightmare, PLUS the separation from rUK
Bzzzpt. Fail
What an odd argument. Scotland voted to stay in the UK, and was then denied its wish to stay in the EU. Scexit is now the only route back into the EU - and might well be economically more attractive than it was the first time around.
I would still vote against Scottish independence, were I Scottish, but I would not deny them the choice.
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
It was once in a generation
Amazingly, @kinabalu off of PB does not get to decide when it “feels about right” for Scotland to vote again
It is a generation for a reason. A new generation has grown up, replacing the old voters, it is justifiable therefore to ask them again
And neither do you.
There's at the very least a case, post Brexit (which Scotland didn't vote for, and was promised wouldn't happen if they voted 'No' to independence) for another vote.
The trouble with the Brexit argument is that a YES vote in 2014 would have meant instant SCEXIT, Scotland out of the EU. That was made very clear at the time. Yet it didn’t bother the SNP at all (nor any of their supporters on here)
Yet now we see that Scexit alone would have been a nightmare, PLUS the separation from rUK
Bzzzpt. Fail
All Sturgeon has to do is persuade a majority of UK MPs in the British parliament, and she will get another vote. If her cause is just, she will do that. She will probably have a decent chance after GE 24
it can’t be done any other way. Scottish indy would profoundly affect everyone in the UK, Scots, English, Welsh and NI, so the UK parliament should and must decide
if she goes for a wildcat vote, good luck to her. It would be suicide
Would you have been OK with the European Parliament denying Britain the right to hold a Brexit referendum, because French MEPs said Non, even though British MPs demanded it?
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.
Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.
To discourage others
Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year
Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute
You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.
This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.
And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.
I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again
The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.
So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.
Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.
Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.
Not that any party will propose this.
But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.
That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.
My usually bleeding heart is somewhat hardened to the cause of the boat people by my visit, today, to the Armenian Genocide Museum
Oh my lord. My god. It is unutterably bleak
One and a half million people (possibly many more) deliberately and systematically killed, and their culture erased. At one point they were drowning orphans in the Euphrates en masse. 2,000 children herded together and driven into a river. Girls and women would be literally bound together, like sheaves of wheat, and tossed down a gorge. They were raped and tortured first, of course
So because you fancied living in England rather than Italy or France you broke the law and you might end up safe - but in Rwanda? Whatever
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.
If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.
Democracy finds a way.
You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.
I totally believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it. If people in NI elect a government pledge to holding a referendum on something, they too ought to be able to.
Regrettably as it stands, the people of Northern Ireland haven't been able to elect a government at all, under their perverted PR voting system. If they had FPTP it might be otherwise, but they don't, and it is what it is.
No, you believe that Liz Truss should be able to override the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, even though the UK government previously agreed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would decide whether the Protocol should continue to be applied.
The people of Northern Ireland haven't got a government, so absolutely it is the UK government's responsibility to legislate in their absence.
If the people of Northern Ireland had elected a government pledged to maintaining the Protocol it might be different, but they didn't.
Sophistry. The majority of voters in Northern Ireland backed parties that support the Protocol and returned a majority of MLAs who also support the Protocol. You are very happy for their democratically expressed views to be ignored by a British government that had previously committed to making those views paramount.
I understand that you will not accept this and that you will find forms of words to justify your blatant hypocrisy, but I just thought it was worth pointing out. You believe in democracy when it suits you. You are happy to see it ignored when it doesn't.
It doesn't matter what the majority of voters in Northern Ireland backed under the Belfast Agreement, they don't have majoritarian FPTP.
Their democratically expressed views are to be determined by the government they elect and as it stands today, they haven't elected a government, therefore it is impossible to say what they have or have not voted for.
That is democracy under the Belfast Agreement. If you're calling for the scrapping of the Belfast Agreement, and replacing it with First Past the Post majoritarian rule for Northern Ireland then go ahead, but that isn't the system they've got today.
This is poor for you. We know exactly what they have voted for. The form of the NI government is known as it is laid out in the Belfast Agreement. The problem is that the bowler hat twatters are refusing to honour that agreement.
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.
If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.
Democracy finds a way.
You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.
I totally believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it. If people in NI elect a government pledge to holding a referendum on something, they too ought to be able to.
Regrettably as it stands, the people of Northern Ireland haven't been able to elect a government at all, under their perverted PR voting system. If they had FPTP it might be otherwise, but they don't, and it is what it is.
No, you believe that Liz Truss should be able to override the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, even though the UK government previously agreed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would decide whether the Protocol should continue to be applied.
The people of Northern Ireland haven't got a government, so absolutely it is the UK government's responsibility to legislate in their absence.
If the people of Northern Ireland had elected a government pledged to maintaining the Protocol it might be different, but they didn't.
Sophistry. The majority of voters in Northern Ireland backed parties that support the Protocol and returned a majority of MLAs who also support the Protocol. You are very happy for their democratically expressed views to be ignored by a British government that had previously committed to making those views paramount.
I understand that you will not accept this and that you will find forms of words to justify your blatant hypocrisy, but I just thought it was worth pointing out. You believe in democracy when it suits you. You are happy to see it ignored when it doesn't.
It doesn't matter what the majority of voters in Northern Ireland backed under the Belfast Agreement, they don't have majoritarian FPTP.
Their democratically expressed views are to be determined by the government they elect and as it stands today, they haven't elected a government, therefore it is impossible to say what they have or have not voted for.
That is democracy under the Belfast Agreement. If you're calling for the scrapping of the Belfast Agreement, and replacing it with First Past the Post majoritarian rule for Northern Ireland then go ahead, but that isn't the system they've got today.
This is poor for you. We know exactly what they have voted for. The form of the NI government is known as it is laid out in the Belfast Agreement. The problem is that the bowler hat twatters are refusing to honour that agreement.
The voters of Northern Ireland were not unaware of what a vote for the DUP would mean.
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.
Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.
To discourage others
Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year
Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute
You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.
This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.
And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.
I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again
The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.
So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.
Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.
Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.
Not that any party will propose this.
But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.
That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.
Sounds like a good policy. 👍
So what would you as Kittens'n'Roses inaugural PM do about people who chose to circumvent your policy by crossing the boat in a dinghy, fuelling people smugglers who are responsible for criminal people smuggling and people drowning?
I'm curious how much more the measures to discourage the black economy can be without making the "hostile environment" worse though. Its already a criminal offence that can lead to imprisonment if you employ or house people here without the right documentation, yet people still do it.
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.
Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.
To discourage others
Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year
Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute
You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.
This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.
And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.
I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again
The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.
So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.
Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.
Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.
Not that any party will propose this.
But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.
That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.
What do you do with immigrants who don't meet the criteria but come from a country with a despot in charge?
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Don't agree. This is what she has to do in order to keep in position. be as positive and rational as possible while waiting for the UK government/courts to say No.
The folly of repeating the Ireland border problem alone trumps any merit independence might have.
I suppose the UK backstop position might be to say "We have learned from experience. Let's agree the deal and then have a referendum". I wouldn't bet on that process being complete before Israel and Palestine do the same.
Setting the pros and cons of the cause aside it's also what she has to do to progress independence. So given it's consistent both with her being genuinely committed to independence and with her only pretending to be committed to independence we must ask ourselves which of these, in the case of this politician who has spent her life promoting and arguing for independence, is the most likely?
Which is a no-brainer imo. Boris Johnson is quite unusual for a politician in having zero principles. There's no evidence Sturgeon is of that ilk. She wants an independent Scotland asap. It's about how to get there, tactics and strategy. She has to get and win a Referendum whilst knowing that to lose it probably kills the dream for her lifetime. Big challenge but she's up for it. I interpret what she says and does through this lens and it stacks up perfectly. Least so far.
Mr. B, if Scotland had voted to leave in 2014 it would've left the EU.
That wasn't a problem for the SNP.
The SNP's position was to stay in the EU as a new member which would have been negotiated during the separation process. This is something which people will sensibly dispute was possible, but it was their position and not wholly out of the question.
So you can put forward an argument that it might have been the consequence, but you can't say that was the intention, because the opposite is true.
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.
Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.
To discourage others
Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year
Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute
You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.
This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.
And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.
I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again
The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.
So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.
Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.
Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.
Not that any party will propose this.
But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.
That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.
That’s actually quite a thoughtful, considered and judicious proposal, not the usual “Stop illegal employment!” nonsense
I agree with almost everything you say
However you do not address the fundamental issue. Which is this: right now any migrant in the EU who wants to come to the UK knows that if they get in a boat at Calais they will be allowed into Britain, it is really quite safe albeit scary (very very few drown) and once you are in British waters, the UK shrugs and accepts you. No one is sent “home”
Why would your proposal stop that? Are you going to literally push back the boats? Shoot at them? No, you are not
So you don’t solve the current problem. The pull factor across the Channel
Pope Francis has said Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine was “perhaps somehow provoked” as he recalled a conversation in the run-up to the war in which he was warned Nato was “barking at the gates of Russia”.
Whoops. If that quote is accurate, I think he may come to regret saying it.
Don't forget however the fastest growth in the Roman Catholic church is in Latin America, Africa and the Philippines and not the West. Most of those areas are less bothered about what Putin is doing than we are. Pope Francis is himself Argentine not European
So African nations would not be bothered if former imperial powers decided a la Putin to start taking back lands they once ruled over?
It was an African country that made one of the best anti-Putin speeches in the UN when this wretched war kicked off.
Most African nations abstained on the UN resolution condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.
If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.
Democracy finds a way.
You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.
I totally believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it. If people in NI elect a government pledge to holding a referendum on something, they too ought to be able to.
Regrettably as it stands, the people of Northern Ireland haven't been able to elect a government at all, under their perverted PR voting system. If they had FPTP it might be otherwise, but they don't, and it is what it is.
No, you believe that Liz Truss should be able to override the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, even though the UK government previously agreed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would decide whether the Protocol should continue to be applied.
The people of Northern Ireland haven't got a government, so absolutely it is the UK government's responsibility to legislate in their absence.
If the people of Northern Ireland had elected a government pledged to maintaining the Protocol it might be different, but they didn't.
Sophistry. The majority of voters in Northern Ireland backed parties that support the Protocol and returned a majority of MLAs who also support the Protocol. You are very happy for their democratically expressed views to be ignored by a British government that had previously committed to making those views paramount.
I understand that you will not accept this and that you will find forms of words to justify your blatant hypocrisy, but I just thought it was worth pointing out. You believe in democracy when it suits you. You are happy to see it ignored when it doesn't.
It doesn't matter what the majority of voters in Northern Ireland backed under the Belfast Agreement, they don't have majoritarian FPTP.
Their democratically expressed views are to be determined by the government they elect and as it stands today, they haven't elected a government, therefore it is impossible to say what they have or have not voted for.
That is democracy under the Belfast Agreement. If you're calling for the scrapping of the Belfast Agreement, and replacing it with First Past the Post majoritarian rule for Northern Ireland then go ahead, but that isn't the system they've got today.
This is poor for you. We know exactly what they have voted for. The form of the NI government is known as it is laid out in the Belfast Agreement. The problem is that the bowler hat twatters are refusing to honour that agreement.
Sorry but "the bowler hat twatters" were duly elected as per the Belfast Agreement and have every bit as much of a right to demand that their demands are taken into account as Martin McGuinness did when he was leading the second party in Stormont.
Under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, the people of NI have elected a government that an integral part of demands that the Protocol is scrapped or seriously changed in implementation. That is what the people of NI have voted for, unless you change the Belfast agreement.
Bairstow starting to play with his T20 freedom. I have the feeling Bairstow is going to do his classic, 20 easy runs, then flashes at a wide one and edged to slip.
My usually bleeding heart is somewhat hardened to the cause of the boat people by my visit, today, to the Armenian Genocide Museum
Oh my lord. My god. It is unutterably bleak
One and a half million people (possibly many more) deliberately and systematically killed, and their culture erased. At one point they were drowning orphans in the Euphrates en masse. 2,000 children herded together and driven into a river. Girls and women would be literally bound together, like sheaves of wheat, and tossed down a gorge. They were raped and tortured first, of course
So because you fancied living in England rather than Italy or France you broke the law and you might end up safe - but in Rwanda? Whatever
People who come here to claim asylum are not breaking the law. You are legally entitled to travel to a country to claim asylum there.
I know the law no longer matters these days so put this down to my innate legally-inspired pedantry. But still ...
As for the colourable statement that a 19 year old with no family around them is safe in a country with few natural resources, where subsistence farming is one of the main economic activities and which recently had a vicious civil war and genocide, well.....
Watching Sturgeon's presser on catch-up. I assume "why not Scotland?" is going to be one of the straplines in the new campaign.
She slipped up late on by dismissing voter fatigue and talking about politician fatigue. That was a stupid comment. But otherwise quite amazing to watch her actually engaging with questions so well. She brushed one or two of them aside, to be sure, but for the most part she took on whatever the press were throwing her way. And she wasn't taking any shit from the Telegraph guy, haha.
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.
Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.
To discourage others
Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year
Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute
You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.
This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.
And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.
I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again
The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.
So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.
Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.
Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.
Not that any party will propose this.
But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.
That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.
Another example of disjointed government approaches.....all this effort over the boat people, at the same time giving work visas to people from places like Nepal and Tajikistan to pick fruit.
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.
If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.
Democracy finds a way.
You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.
I totally believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it. If people in NI elect a government pledge to holding a referendum on something, they too ought to be able to.
Regrettably as it stands, the people of Northern Ireland haven't been able to elect a government at all, under their perverted PR voting system. If they had FPTP it might be otherwise, but they don't, and it is what it is.
No, you believe that Liz Truss should be able to override the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, even though the UK government previously agreed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would decide whether the Protocol should continue to be applied.
The people of Northern Ireland haven't got a government, so absolutely it is the UK government's responsibility to legislate in their absence.
If the people of Northern Ireland had elected a government pledged to maintaining the Protocol it might be different, but they didn't.
Sophistry. The majority of voters in Northern Ireland backed parties that support the Protocol and returned a majority of MLAs who also support the Protocol. You are very happy for their democratically expressed views to be ignored by a British government that had previously committed to making those views paramount.
I understand that you will not accept this and that you will find forms of words to justify your blatant hypocrisy, but I just thought it was worth pointing out. You believe in democracy when it suits you. You are happy to see it ignored when it doesn't.
It doesn't matter what the majority of voters in Northern Ireland backed under the Belfast Agreement, they don't have majoritarian FPTP.
Their democratically expressed views are to be determined by the government they elect and as it stands today, they haven't elected a government, therefore it is impossible to say what they have or have not voted for.
That is democracy under the Belfast Agreement. If you're calling for the scrapping of the Belfast Agreement, and replacing it with First Past the Post majoritarian rule for Northern Ireland then go ahead, but that isn't the system they've got today.
This is poor for you. We know exactly what they have voted for. The form of the NI government is known as it is laid out in the Belfast Agreement. The problem is that the bowler hat twatters are refusing to honour that agreement.
Sorry but "the bowler hat twatters" were duly elected as per the Belfast Agreement and have every bit as much of a right to demand that their demands are taken into account as Martin McGuinness did when he was leading the second party in Stormont.
Under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, the people of NI have elected a government that an integral part of demands that the Protocol is scrapped or seriously changed in implementation. That is what the people of NI have voted for, unless you change the Belfast agreement.
And another, larger integral part doesn't want it scrapped and doesn't want the proposed changes. Solve that one, King Solomon.
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.
Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.
Another was the son of a former British interpreter in Afghanistan.
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.
If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.
Democracy finds a way.
You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.
I totally believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it. If people in NI elect a government pledge to holding a referendum on something, they too ought to be able to.
Regrettably as it stands, the people of Northern Ireland haven't been able to elect a government at all, under their perverted PR voting system. If they had FPTP it might be otherwise, but they don't, and it is what it is.
No, you believe that Liz Truss should be able to override the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, even though the UK government previously agreed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would decide whether the Protocol should continue to be applied.
The people of Northern Ireland haven't got a government, so absolutely it is the UK government's responsibility to legislate in their absence.
If the people of Northern Ireland had elected a government pledged to maintaining the Protocol it might be different, but they didn't.
Sophistry. The majority of voters in Northern Ireland backed parties that support the Protocol and returned a majority of MLAs who also support the Protocol. You are very happy for their democratically expressed views to be ignored by a British government that had previously committed to making those views paramount.
I understand that you will not accept this and that you will find forms of words to justify your blatant hypocrisy, but I just thought it was worth pointing out. You believe in democracy when it suits you. You are happy to see it ignored when it doesn't.
It doesn't matter what the majority of voters in Northern Ireland backed under the Belfast Agreement, they don't have majoritarian FPTP.
Their democratically expressed views are to be determined by the government they elect and as it stands today, they haven't elected a government, therefore it is impossible to say what they have or have not voted for.
That is democracy under the Belfast Agreement. If you're calling for the scrapping of the Belfast Agreement, and replacing it with First Past the Post majoritarian rule for Northern Ireland then go ahead, but that isn't the system they've got today.
This is poor for you. We know exactly what they have voted for. The form of the NI government is known as it is laid out in the Belfast Agreement. The problem is that the bowler hat twatters are refusing to honour that agreement.
Sorry but "the bowler hat twatters" were duly elected as per the Belfast Agreement and have every bit as much of a right to demand that their demands are taken into account as Martin McGuinness did when he was leading the second party in Stormont.
Under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, the people of NI have elected a government that an integral part of demands that the Protocol is scrapped or seriously changed in implementation. That is what the people of NI have voted for, unless you change the Belfast agreement.
And another, larger integral part doesn't want it scrapped and doesn't want the proposed changes. Solve that one, King Solomon.
Simple, the two parties need to reach common accord, or they fail to do so in which case power reverts to Westminster to pass laws for NI until common accord is reached, which is what Truss is doing.
Just as Westminster legislated to legalise abortion last time power sharing failed. 👍
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.
Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.
To discourage others
Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year
Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute
You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.
This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.
And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.
I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again
The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.
So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.
Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.
Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.
Not that any party will propose this.
But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.
That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.
What do you do with immigrants who don't meet the criteria but come from a country with a despot in charge?
Send them back, of course. After all, we now live in a country with a despot in charge - in fact a whole gang of them.
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
It was once in a generation
Amazingly, @kinabalu off of PB does not get to decide when it “feels about right” for Scotland to vote again
It is a generation for a reason. A new generation has grown up, replacing the old voters, it is justifiable therefore to ask them again
And neither do you.
There's at the very least a case, post Brexit (which Scotland didn't vote for, and was promised wouldn't happen if they voted 'No' to independence) for another vote.
The trouble with the Brexit argument is that a YES vote in 2014 would have meant instant SCEXIT, Scotland out of the EU. That was made very clear at the time. Yet it didn’t bother the SNP at all (nor any of their supporters on here)
Yet now we see that Scexit alone would have been a nightmare, PLUS the separation from rUK
Bzzzpt. Fail
What an odd argument. Scotland voted to stay in the UK, and was then denied its wish to stay in the EU. Scexit is now the only route back into the EU - and might well be economically more attractive than it was the first time around.
I would still vote against Scottish independence, were I Scottish, but I would not deny them the choice.
Somebody like me would be a good example. If Scottish, I would have been very firmly in the Unionist camp in 2014, as the disruption caused by having to leave the EU (even if temporarily) was enough by itself to convince me to stay with the status quo. As was argued very powerfully by Unionists. Now we're having that disruption anyway, and the possibility of being able to exchange the UK for the EU for just a bit more disruption would make me a genuine 'Don't Know' this time round.
Mr. B, if Scotland had voted to leave in 2014 it would've left the EU.
That wasn't a problem for the SNP.
The SNP's position was to stay in the EU as a new member which would have been negotiated during the separation process. This is something which people will sensibly dispute was possible, but it was their position and not wholly out of the question.
So you can put forward an argument that it might have been the consequence, but you can't say that was the intention, because the opposite is true.
Oh do fuck off
The SNP could as easily claim it was going to be the 51st state of the USA on independence, and it would be similarly plausible
The EU is bound by treaties between the states, which hinge very carefully on numbers of commissioners, MEPs, etc, plus all the nuanced and delicately negotiated trade laws. The accession of a brand new EU state, iScotland!, would not have been received with a shrug, oh just put a few more chairs out at Strasbourg, we all love kilts
It’s beyond ridiculous
After a YES vote, iScotland would have been out out out the EU. No question. With a decade of negotiation to get back in. As we all now know, to our cost, the EU does not do blithe shrugs
The more interesting question is how the EU would have dealt with rUK. it is quite possible rUK would have had to rBrexit as well, and renegotiate a new Treaty for re-accession, to establish how many MEPs we were entitled to, the status of the border at Berwick, and so forth
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
Most are asylum seekers whose claims - once processed - are granted.
Not true.
"The UK offered protection to 14,734 people (including dependants) in 2021, in the form of asylum, humanitarian protection, alternative forms of leave and resettlement. Resettlement accounted for 1,587 of those people (11%); this does not include the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, as the first eligible person was relocated under the scheme on 6 January 2022 (after the period referred to in this publication), and will be included in future releases. The number of people offered protection was 49% higher than the previous year, and similar to levels seen from 2015 to 2018."
"There were 48,540 asylum applications (main applicants only) in the UK in 2021, this is 63% more than the previous year. This is higher than at the peak of the European Migration crisis (36,546 applications in 2015-2016) and the highest number of applications for almost two decades (since 2003)."
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.
Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.
To discourage others
Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year
Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute
You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.
This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.
And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.
I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again
The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.
So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.
Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.
Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.
Not that any party will propose this.
But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.
That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.
That’s actually quite a thoughtful, considered and judicious proposal, not the usual “Stop illegal employment!” nonsense
I agree with almost everything you say
However you do not address the fundamental issue. Which is this: right now any migrant in the EU who wants to come to the UK knows that if they get in a boat at Calais they will be allowed into Britain, it is really quite safe albeit scary (very very few drown) and once you are in British waters, the UK shrugs and accepts you. No one is sent “home”
Why would your proposal stop that? Are you going to literally push back the boats? Shoot at them? No, you are not
So you don’t solve the current problem. The pull factor across the Channel
The @rcs1000 proposals help with reducing the pull factor. Allowing people to make claims from the country they're in - rather than as now only from the U.K. - would also discourage coming here.
But I don't claim to have complete answers. It's a start which is more than can be said for most of the other proposed solutions. It's a start because it questions the accepted shibboleth that being a refugee should automatically allow you to get into a country. That is the problem because pretty much an unlimited number of people can probably lawfully claim to be refugees. So a country has no control but has legal obligations so is forced into making it as hard as possible for people to get here.
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
It was once in a generation
Amazingly, @kinabalu off of PB does not get to decide when it “feels about right” for Scotland to vote again
It is a generation for a reason. A new generation has grown up, replacing the old voters, it is justifiable therefore to ask them again
And neither do you.
There's at the very least a case, post Brexit (which Scotland didn't vote for, and was promised wouldn't happen if they voted 'No' to independence) for another vote.
The trouble with the Brexit argument is that a YES vote in 2014 would have meant instant SCEXIT, Scotland out of the EU. That was made very clear at the time. Yet it didn’t bother the SNP at all (nor any of their supporters on here)
Yet now we see that Scexit alone would have been a nightmare, PLUS the separation from rUK
Bzzzpt. Fail
All Sturgeon has to do is persuade a majority of UK MPs in the British parliament, and she will get another vote. If her cause is just, she will do that. She will probably have a decent chance after GE 24
it can’t be done any other way. Scottish indy would profoundly affect everyone in the UK, Scots, English, Welsh and NI, so the UK parliament should and must decide
if she goes for a wildcat vote, good luck to her. It would be suicide
Would you have been OK with the European Parliament denying Britain the right to hold a Brexit referendum, because French MEPs said Non, even though British MPs demanded it?
It was the EU that created Article 16 allowing an EU member state to exit.
The UK government has always ensured it has the final say on the Union
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.
If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.
Democracy finds a way.
You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.
I totally believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it. If people in NI elect a government pledge to holding a referendum on something, they too ought to be able to.
Regrettably as it stands, the people of Northern Ireland haven't been able to elect a government at all, under their perverted PR voting system. If they had FPTP it might be otherwise, but they don't, and it is what it is.
No, you believe that Liz Truss should be able to override the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, even though the UK government previously agreed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would decide whether the Protocol should continue to be applied.
The people of Northern Ireland haven't got a government, so absolutely it is the UK government's responsibility to legislate in their absence.
If the people of Northern Ireland had elected a government pledged to maintaining the Protocol it might be different, but they didn't.
Sophistry. The majority of voters in Northern Ireland backed parties that support the Protocol and returned a majority of MLAs who also support the Protocol. You are very happy for their democratically expressed views to be ignored by a British government that had previously committed to making those views paramount.
I understand that you will not accept this and that you will find forms of words to justify your blatant hypocrisy, but I just thought it was worth pointing out. You believe in democracy when it suits you. You are happy to see it ignored when it doesn't.
It doesn't matter what the majority of voters in Northern Ireland backed under the Belfast Agreement, they don't have majoritarian FPTP.
Their democratically expressed views are to be determined by the government they elect and as it stands today, they haven't elected a government, therefore it is impossible to say what they have or have not voted for.
That is democracy under the Belfast Agreement. If you're calling for the scrapping of the Belfast Agreement, and replacing it with First Past the Post majoritarian rule for Northern Ireland then go ahead, but that isn't the system they've got today.
This is poor for you. We know exactly what they have voted for. The form of the NI government is known as it is laid out in the Belfast Agreement. The problem is that the bowler hat twatters are refusing to honour that agreement.
Sorry but "the bowler hat twatters" were duly elected as per the Belfast Agreement and have every bit as much of a right to demand that their demands are taken into account as Martin McGuinness did when he was leading the second party in Stormont.
Under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, the people of NI have elected a government that an integral part of demands that the Protocol is scrapped or seriously changed in implementation. That is what the people of NI have voted for, unless you change the Belfast agreement.
And another, larger integral part doesn't want it scrapped and doesn't want the proposed changes. Solve that one, King Solomon.
Simple, the two parties need to reach common accord, or they fail to do so in which case power reverts to Westminster to pass laws for NI until common accord is reached, which is what Truss is doing.
Just as Westminster legislated to legalise abortion last time power sharing failed. 👍
Right, so when you said the people of NI voted for this, actually you meant they didn't vote for it but it's fine because Liz Truss.
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.
Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.
To discourage others
Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year
Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute
You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.
This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.
And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.
I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again
The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.
So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.
Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.
Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.
Not that any party will propose this.
But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.
That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.
That’s actually quite a thoughtful, considered and judicious proposal, not the usual “Stop illegal employment!” nonsense
I agree with almost everything you say
However you do not address the fundamental issue. Which is this: right now any migrant in the EU who wants to come to the UK knows that if they get in a boat at Calais they will be allowed into Britain, it is really quite safe albeit scary (very very few drown) and once you are in British waters, the UK shrugs and accepts you. No one is sent “home”
Why would your proposal stop that? Are you going to literally push back the boats? Shoot at them? No, you are not
So you don’t solve the current problem. The pull factor across the Channel
The @rcs1000 proposals help with reducing the pull factor. Allowing people to make claims from the country they're in - rather than as now only from the U.K. - would also discourage coming here.
But I don't claim to have complete answers. It's a start which is more than can be said for most of the other proposed solutions. It's a start because it questions the accepted shibboleth that being a refugee should automatically allow you to get into a country. That is the problem because pretty much an unlimited number of people can probably lawfully claim to be refugees. So a country has no control but has legal obligations so is forced into making it as hard as possible for people to get here.
I don't have an answer to the boat problem. Yet.
At least you’re honest. You have no answer
So we are back to Rwanda, then. At least we cleared that up
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
Most are asylum seekers whose claims - once processed - are granted.
Not true.
"The UK offered protection to 14,734 people (including dependants) in 2021, in the form of asylum, humanitarian protection, alternative forms of leave and resettlement. Resettlement accounted for 1,587 of those people (11%); this does not include the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, as the first eligible person was relocated under the scheme on 6 January 2022 (after the period referred to in this publication), and will be included in future releases. The number of people offered protection was 49% higher than the previous year, and similar to levels seen from 2015 to 2018."
"There were 48,540 asylum applications (main applicants only) in the UK in 2021, this is 63% more than the previous year. This is higher than at the peak of the European Migration crisis (36,546 applications in 2015-2016) and the highest number of applications for almost two decades (since 2003)."
For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.
1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.) 2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image) 3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag) 4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive) 5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.) 6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs) 7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack) 8) Yorkshire 9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex) 10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply) 11) Dorset (ditto) 12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit) 13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow) 14) Suffolk 15) Westmorland 16) Lancashire 17) Durham 18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it) 19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green) 20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow) 21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts) 22) Leicestershire 23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag) 24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression) 25) Cumberland 26) Lincolnshire 27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such) 28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham) 29) Buckinghamshire 30) Hertfordshire 31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown) 32) Hampshire 33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is) 34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee) 35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid) 36) Rutland 37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?) 38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it). 39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
Nonsense. If it's another no she'll start agitating for a third referendum the very next day.
If she does, and the Scottish voters are pissed off about that, then they can vote accordingly. As happened in Quebec.
Democracy finds a way.
You have a selective view of democracy. You do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it, for example.
I totally believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be allowed to enjoy it. If people in NI elect a government pledge to holding a referendum on something, they too ought to be able to.
Regrettably as it stands, the people of Northern Ireland haven't been able to elect a government at all, under their perverted PR voting system. If they had FPTP it might be otherwise, but they don't, and it is what it is.
No, you believe that Liz Truss should be able to override the wishes of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, even though the UK government previously agreed that the majority of people in Northern Ireland would decide whether the Protocol should continue to be applied.
The people of Northern Ireland haven't got a government, so absolutely it is the UK government's responsibility to legislate in their absence.
If the people of Northern Ireland had elected a government pledged to maintaining the Protocol it might be different, but they didn't.
Sophistry. The majority of voters in Northern Ireland backed parties that support the Protocol and returned a majority of MLAs who also support the Protocol. You are very happy for their democratically expressed views to be ignored by a British government that had previously committed to making those views paramount.
I understand that you will not accept this and that you will find forms of words to justify your blatant hypocrisy, but I just thought it was worth pointing out. You believe in democracy when it suits you. You are happy to see it ignored when it doesn't.
It doesn't matter what the majority of voters in Northern Ireland backed under the Belfast Agreement, they don't have majoritarian FPTP.
Their democratically expressed views are to be determined by the government they elect and as it stands today, they haven't elected a government, therefore it is impossible to say what they have or have not voted for.
That is democracy under the Belfast Agreement. If you're calling for the scrapping of the Belfast Agreement, and replacing it with First Past the Post majoritarian rule for Northern Ireland then go ahead, but that isn't the system they've got today.
This is poor for you. We know exactly what they have voted for. The form of the NI government is known as it is laid out in the Belfast Agreement. The problem is that the bowler hat twatters are refusing to honour that agreement.
Sorry but "the bowler hat twatters" were duly elected as per the Belfast Agreement and have every bit as much of a right to demand that their demands are taken into account as Martin McGuinness did when he was leading the second party in Stormont.
Under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, the people of NI have elected a government that an integral part of demands that the Protocol is scrapped or seriously changed in implementation. That is what the people of NI have voted for, unless you change the Belfast agreement.
And another, larger integral part doesn't want it scrapped and doesn't want the proposed changes. Solve that one, King Solomon.
Simple, the two parties need to reach common accord, or they fail to do so in which case power reverts to Westminster to pass laws for NI until common accord is reached, which is what Truss is doing.
Just as Westminster legislated to legalise abortion last time power sharing failed. 👍
Right, so when you said the people of NI voted for this, actually you meant they didn't vote for it but it's fine because Liz Truss.
What I actually said is "the people of NI have elected a government that an integral part of demands that the Protocol is scrapped or seriously changed in implementation"
That is true. An integral part of it demands it is scrapped, that is what the people voted for. Another part doesn't want it being scrapped. Unfortunately normally the party that is willing to say no the loudest tends to get its way, and right now that's the DUP, just as in the past Martin McGuinness could do the same thing. That is what the Belfast Agreement permits.
If the DUP and Sinn Fein could resolve their differences between them, then Truss wouldn't need to act, but as it stands they aren't doing so, and we're guarantors of the Belfast Agreement so its our responsibility to act accordingly now.
My usually bleeding heart is somewhat hardened to the cause of the boat people by my visit, today, to the Armenian Genocide Museum
Oh my lord. My god. It is unutterably bleak
One and a half million people (possibly many more) deliberately and systematically killed, and their culture erased. At one point they were drowning orphans in the Euphrates en masse. 2,000 children herded together and driven into a river. Girls and women would be literally bound together, like sheaves of wheat, and tossed down a gorge. They were raped and tortured first, of course
So because you fancied living in England rather than Italy or France you broke the law and you might end up safe - but in Rwanda? Whatever
People who come here to claim asylum are not breaking the law. You are legally entitled to travel to a country to claim asylum there.
I know the law no longer matters these days so put this down to my innate legally-inspired pedantry. But still ...
As for the colourable statement that a 19 year old with no family around them is safe in a country with few natural resources, where subsistence farming is one of the main economic activities and which recently had a vicious civil war and genocide, well.....
The law is whatever the government says it is. The leader principle, as the Germans called it.
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.
Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.
To discourage others
Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year
Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute
You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.
This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.
And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.
I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again
The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.
So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.
Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.
Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.
Not that any party will propose this.
But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.
That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.
What do you do with immigrants who don't meet the criteria but come from a country with a despot in charge?
Send them back, of course. After all, we now live in a country with a despot in charge - in fact a whole gang of them.
Funny sort of despot that lets you go online and say that.
My usually bleeding heart is somewhat hardened to the cause of the boat people by my visit, today, to the Armenian Genocide Museum
Oh my lord. My god. It is unutterably bleak
One and a half million people (possibly many more) deliberately and systematically killed, and their culture erased. At one point they were drowning orphans in the Euphrates en masse. 2,000 children herded together and driven into a river. Girls and women would be literally bound together, like sheaves of wheat, and tossed down a gorge. They were raped and tortured first, of course
So because you fancied living in England rather than Italy or France you broke the law and you might end up safe - but in Rwanda? Whatever
People who come here to claim asylum are not breaking the law. You are legally entitled to travel to a country to claim asylum there.
I know the law no longer matters these days so put this down to my innate legally-inspired pedantry. But still ...
As for the colourable statement that a 19 year old with no family around them is safe in a country with few natural resources, where subsistence farming is one of the main economic activities and which recently had a vicious civil war and genocide, well.....
The law is whatever the government says it is. The leader principle, as the Germans called it.
I checked with the Government, and they said it's still illegal to travel to this country illegally. The exception for asylum seekers only applies if they are travelling from an unsafe country, which does not apply to those crossing the Channel from France.
For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.
1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.) 2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image) 3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag) 4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive) 5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.) 6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs) 7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack) 8) Yorkshire 9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex) 10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply) 11) Dorset (ditto) 12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit) 13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow) 14) Suffolk 15) Westmorland 16) Lancashire 17) Durham 18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it) 19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green) 20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow) 21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts) 22) Leicestershire 23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag) 24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression) 25) Cumberland 26) Lincolnshire 27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such) 28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham) 29) Buckinghamshire 30) Hertfordshire 31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown) 32) Hampshire 33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is) 34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee) 35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid) 36) Rutland 37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?) 38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it). 39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)
Clearly rubbish. Norfolk's flag is number one to match the county status
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
Chances (last year) of an asylum seeker dying while seeking to cross the channel: 0.16% Chances (this YTD - assuming all seven are sent) of an asylum seeker being deported to Rwanda: 0.07%
I don't think these are numbers that have or will be a huge disincentive to people trying to get here via the channel.
Agreed. This only works if the government has the cullions to enforce it on everyone
I have my doubts, to put it mildly. But then again I am surprised they’ve shown the backbone to take it even this far
Doing it properly involves spending a lot of money on off shore processing facilities.
@rcs1000 has explained how Switzerland which has pretty much open borders has managed to stop the problem of undocumented migrants getting into the country.
I have yet to see why those proposals would not help the situation here.
Mr. B, if Scotland had voted to leave in 2014 it would've left the EU.
That wasn't a problem for the SNP.
The SNP's position was to stay in the EU as a new member which would have been negotiated during the separation process. This is something which people will sensibly dispute was possible, but it was their position and not wholly out of the question.
So you can put forward an argument that it might have been the consequence, but you can't say that was the intention, because the opposite is true.
Oh do fuck off
The SNP could as easily claim it was going to be the 51st state of the USA on independence, and it would be similarly plausible
The EU is bound by treaties between the states, which hinge very carefully on numbers of commissioners, MEPs, etc, plus all the nuanced and delicately negotiated trade laws. The accession of a brand new EU state, iScotland!, would not have been received with a shrug, oh just put a few more chairs out at Strasbourg, we all love kilts
It’s beyond ridiculous
After a YES vote, iScotland would have been out out out the EU. No question. With a decade of negotiation to get back in. As we all now know, to our cost, the EU does not do blithe shrugs
The more interesting question is how the EU would have dealt with rUK. it is quite possible rUK would have had to rBrexit as well, and renegotiate a new Treaty for re-accession, to establish how many MEPs we were entitled to, the status of the border at Berwick, and so forth
You're certainly wrong about rUK having to leave.
As for Scotland's prospects of acceding in a short timescale, I'm less pessimistic than you. After all, all EU law was already enacted in Scotland at that time. There would have needed to be some fudging on how other accession criteria were worked out, but in any case, try to reread my post. All I'm saying is what the policy position was, and it was as I said. Sorry if that fact rubs your ideology up the wrong way, but that's your problem.
My usually bleeding heart is somewhat hardened to the cause of the boat people by my visit, today, to the Armenian Genocide Museum
Oh my lord. My god. It is unutterably bleak
One and a half million people (possibly many more) deliberately and systematically killed, and their culture erased. At one point they were drowning orphans in the Euphrates en masse. 2,000 children herded together and driven into a river. Girls and women would be literally bound together, like sheaves of wheat, and tossed down a gorge. They were raped and tortured first, of course
So because you fancied living in England rather than Italy or France you broke the law and you might end up safe - but in Rwanda? Whatever
People who come here to claim asylum are not breaking the law. You are legally entitled to travel to a country to claim asylum there.
I know the law no longer matters these days so put this down to my innate legally-inspired pedantry. But still ...
As for the colourable statement that a 19 year old with no family around them is safe in a country with few natural resources, where subsistence farming is one of the main economic activities and which recently had a vicious civil war and genocide, well.....
The law is whatever the government says it is. The leader principle, as the Germans called it.
Close. The law is whatever Parliament says it is. Parliamentary Sovereignty.
For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.
1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.) 2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image) 3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag) 4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive) 5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.) 6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs) 7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack) 8) Yorkshire 9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex) 10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply) 11) Dorset (ditto) 12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit) 13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow) 14) Suffolk 15) Westmorland 16) Lancashire 17) Durham 18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it) 19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green) 20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow) 21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts) 22) Leicestershire 23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag) 24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression) 25) Cumberland 26) Lincolnshire 27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such) 28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham) 29) Buckinghamshire 30) Hertfordshire 31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown) 32) Hampshire 33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is) 34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee) 35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid) 36) Rutland 37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?) 38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it). 39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)
Great list. Good work, Sir! This is why I come to PB
Noticeable that, the nearer you get to a county being an imaginable if tiny COUNTRY, the better and more plausible the flag as a flag of independence?
Cornwall has the best claim of any English county to being an independent country. And their flag is the most distinctive
After Cornwall, Kent and Essex have very distinct identities - the men of Kent etc, then Yorkshire at number 8… Northumberland 10
And the counties at the bottom are pretty much the counties you can least imagine having some separate national identity (with the possible exception of Norfolk): Beds, Sussex, Rutland, Hunts, Oxon, Wilts
I wonder if this is true of American states? The most likely to secede is probably Texas. With its distinctive Lone Star flag….
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.
Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.
To discourage others
Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year
Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute
You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.
This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.
And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.
I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again
The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.
So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.
Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.
Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.
Not that any party will propose this.
But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.
That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.
What do you do with immigrants who don't meet the criteria but come from a country with a despot in charge?
Send them back, of course. After all, we now live in a country with a despot in charge - in fact a whole gang of them.
Funny sort of despot that lets you go online and say that.
Isn't that sort of thing covered by one of Patel's Police Acts? So it's just a question of time.
For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.
1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.) 2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image) 3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag) 4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive) 5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.) 6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs) 7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack) 8) Yorkshire 9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex) 10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply) 11) Dorset (ditto) 12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit) 13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow) 14) Suffolk 15) Westmorland 16) Lancashire 17) Durham 18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it) 19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green) 20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow) 21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts) 22) Leicestershire 23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag) 24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression) 25) Cumberland 26) Lincolnshire 27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such) 28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham) 29) Buckinghamshire 30) Hertfordshire 31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown) 32) Hampshire 33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is) 34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee) 35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid) 36) Rutland 37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?) 38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it). 39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)
Wiltshire has a bustard in the middle of the flag. Happily been successfully reintroduced in recent years. Green stripes are the grassy downland and white the chalk underneath much of the county.
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.
Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.
I have an uncle and cousin in Canada, and also an uncle and two cousins in Australia, including their families, all living there.
Do I have a right to just turn up uninvited and claim citizenship?
My usually bleeding heart is somewhat hardened to the cause of the boat people by my visit, today, to the Armenian Genocide Museum
Oh my lord. My god. It is unutterably bleak
One and a half million people (possibly many more) deliberately and systematically killed, and their culture erased. At one point they were drowning orphans in the Euphrates en masse. 2,000 children herded together and driven into a river. Girls and women would be literally bound together, like sheaves of wheat, and tossed down a gorge. They were raped and tortured first, of course
So because you fancied living in England rather than Italy or France you broke the law and you might end up safe - but in Rwanda? Whatever
The lengths gone to suggest something a little stronger than "fancy living in England". Fact is, we take less than we should and this is about taking even fewer plus some gammon dogwhistle and creating problems for Labour in response. I don't for one second buy that it's about hitting the people smugglers. We could achieve that (amongst other things) by working with others to create safe and legal routes but with controls/limits. Trouble is, this takes skill, effort, empathy, vision and determination. Not Johnson's bag at all.
For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.
1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.) 2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image) 3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag) 4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive) 5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.) 6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs) 7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack) 8) Yorkshire 9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex) 10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply) 11) Dorset (ditto) 12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit) 13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow) 14) Suffolk 15) Westmorland 16) Lancashire 17) Durham 18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it) 19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green) 20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow) 21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts) 22) Leicestershire 23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag) 24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression) 25) Cumberland 26) Lincolnshire 27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such) 28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham) 29) Buckinghamshire 30) Hertfordshire 31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown) 32) Hampshire 33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is) 34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee) 35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid) 36) Rutland 37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?) 38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it). 39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)
Great list. Good work, Sir! This is why I come to PB
Noticeable that, the nearer you get to a county being an imaginable if tiny COUNTRY, the better and more plausible the flag as a flag of independence?
Cornwall has the best claim of any English county to being an independent country. And their flag is the most distinctive
After Cornwall, Kent and Essex have very distinct identities - the men of Kent etc, then Yorkshire at number 8… Northumberland 10
And the counties at the bottom are pretty much the counties you can least imagine having some separate national identity (with the possible exception of Norfolk): Beds, Sussex, Rutland, Hunts, Oxon, Wilts
I wonder if this is true of American states? The most likely to secede is probably Texas. With its distinctive Lone Star flag….
Definitely something in that. Perhaps because those which are most plausible are those with some history of standing alone/apart? I suspect the flags of Cornwall, Kent, Essex are rather older than those of Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire etc which have had to come along and create flags after all the good colours/emblems have been taken. No excuse for quite so much red/yellow and light blue/green though.
Though its not a county, no discussion of county flags can go by without an honorary mention for the Isle of Man flag. A cartwheel of three armoured legs is just so wonderfully bizarre.
For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.
1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.) 2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image) 3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag) 4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive) 5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.) 6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs) 7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack) 8) Yorkshire 9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex) 10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply) 11) Dorset (ditto) 12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit) 13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow) 14) Suffolk 15) Westmorland 16) Lancashire 17) Durham 18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it) 19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green) 20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow) 21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts) 22) Leicestershire 23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag) 24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression) 25) Cumberland 26) Lincolnshire 27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such) 28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham) 29) Buckinghamshire 30) Hertfordshire 31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown) 32) Hampshire 33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is) 34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee) 35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid) 36) Rutland 37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?) 38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it). 39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)
Clearly rubbish. Norfolk's flag is number one to match the county status
Impressive press conference from Sturgeon. Right now you can count me as on board.
Contrary to the popular "she's happy on the status quo gravy strain" refrain I think she's going to pull it off or die trying.
Yes, the "she doesn't really want it" refrain was always daft.
As (imo) is the notion the Scots will keep demanding Indy Referendums every other week until there's a Yes. The truth is the next one (assuming she gets it in the next couple of years or so) is crunch time. If it's another No that's it for a long long time*. She will know this.
PLEASE nobody do the facetious "what, like a generation?" on me here. I can't even crack a polite smile at that anymore.
It was once in a generation
Amazingly, @kinabalu off of PB does not get to decide when it “feels about right” for Scotland to vote again
It is a generation for a reason. A new generation has grown up, replacing the old voters, it is justifiable therefore to ask them again
And neither do you.
There's at the very least a case, post Brexit (which Scotland didn't vote for, and was promised wouldn't happen if they voted 'No' to independence) for another vote.
The trouble with the Brexit argument is that a YES vote in 2014 would have meant instant SCEXIT, Scotland out of the EU. That was made very clear at the time. Yet it didn’t bother the SNP at all (nor any of their supporters on here)
Yet now we see that Scexit alone would have been a nightmare, PLUS the separation from rUK
Bzzzpt. Fail
All Sturgeon has to do is persuade a majority of UK MPs in the British parliament, and she will get another vote. If her cause is just, she will do that. She will probably have a decent chance after GE 24
it can’t be done any other way. Scottish indy would profoundly affect everyone in the UK, Scots, English, Welsh and NI, so the UK parliament should and must decide
if she goes for a wildcat vote, good luck to her. It would be suicide
Would you have been OK with the European Parliament denying Britain the right to hold a Brexit referendum, because French MEPs said Non, even though British MPs demanded it?
It was the EU that created Article 16 allowing an EU member state to exit.
The UK government has always ensured it has the final say on the Union
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
Chances (last year) of an asylum seeker dying while seeking to cross the channel: 0.16% Chances (this YTD - assuming all seven are sent) of an asylum seeker being deported to Rwanda: 0.07%
I don't think these are numbers that have or will be a huge disincentive to people trying to get here via the channel.
Agreed. This only works if the government has the cullions to enforce it on everyone
I have my doubts, to put it mildly. But then again I am surprised they’ve shown the backbone to take it even this far
Doing it properly involves spending a lot of money on off shore processing facilities.
This is like a knock off version.
The Australian solution also involved tow backs which are a hell of a lot cheaper and more effective as a deterrent. No way do Johnson and Patel have the backbone for that.
For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.
1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.) 2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image) 3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag) 4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive) 5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.) 6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs) 7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack) 8) Yorkshire 9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex) 10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply) 11) Dorset (ditto) 12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit) 13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow) 14) Suffolk 15) Westmorland 16) Lancashire 17) Durham 18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it) 19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green) 20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow) 21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts) 22) Leicestershire 23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag) 24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression) 25) Cumberland 26) Lincolnshire 27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such) 28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham) 29) Buckinghamshire 30) Hertfordshire 31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown) 32) Hampshire 33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is) 34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee) 35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid) 36) Rutland 37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?) 38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it). 39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)
Great list. Good work, Sir! This is why I come to PB
Noticeable that, the nearer you get to a county being an imaginable if tiny COUNTRY, the better and more plausible the flag as a flag of independence?
Cornwall has the best claim of any English county to being an independent country. And their flag is the most distinctive
After Cornwall, Kent and Essex have very distinct identities - the men of Kent etc, then Yorkshire at number 8… Northumberland 10
And the counties at the bottom are pretty much the counties you can least imagine having some separate national identity (with the possible exception of Norfolk): Beds, Sussex, Rutland, Hunts, Oxon, Wilts
I wonder if this is true of American states? The most likely to secede is probably Texas. With its distinctive Lone Star flag….
Which, of course, started life as a national flag.
For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.
1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.) 2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image) 3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag) 4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive) 5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.) 6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs) 7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack) 8) Yorkshire 9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex) 10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply) 11) Dorset (ditto) 12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit) 13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow) 14) Suffolk 15) Westmorland 16) Lancashire 17) Durham 18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it) 19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green) 20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow) 21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts) 22) Leicestershire 23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag) 24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression) 25) Cumberland 26) Lincolnshire 27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such) 28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham) 29) Buckinghamshire 30) Hertfordshire 31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown) 32) Hampshire 33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is) 34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee) 35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid) 36) Rutland 37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?) 38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it). 39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)
Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.
Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.
To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.
Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.
I respect BR’s arguments as being honest and reasoned.
For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.
1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.) 2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image) 3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag) 4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive) 5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.) 6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs) 7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack) 8) Yorkshire 9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex) 10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply) 11) Dorset (ditto) 12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit) 13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow) 14) Suffolk 15) Westmorland 16) Lancashire 17) Durham 18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it) 19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green) 20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow) 21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts) 22) Leicestershire 23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag) 24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression) 25) Cumberland 26) Lincolnshire 27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such) 28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham) 29) Buckinghamshire 30) Hertfordshire 31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown) 32) Hampshire 33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is) 34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee) 35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid) 36) Rutland 37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?) 38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it). 39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)
Great list. Good work, Sir! This is why I come to PB
Noticeable that, the nearer you get to a county being an imaginable if tiny COUNTRY, the better and more plausible the flag as a flag of independence?
Cornwall has the best claim of any English county to being an independent country. And their flag is the most distinctive
After Cornwall, Kent and Essex have very distinct identities - the men of Kent etc, then Yorkshire at number 8… Northumberland 10
And the counties at the bottom are pretty much the counties you can least imagine having some separate national identity (with the possible exception of Norfolk): Beds, Sussex, Rutland, Hunts, Oxon, Wilts
I wonder if this is true of American states? The most likely to secede is probably Texas. With its distinctive Lone Star flag….
The question is how many you can identify by just looking at the flag.
I’d say, Cornwall Yorkshire Lancashire Essex Kent Warwickshire Maybe Hertfordshire
Also, but only by deduction, Leicestershire and Worcestershire.
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
One of the people scheduled to be deported is a 19-year old Iranian who has 2 brothers, 4 uncles and their families, all of them British citizens, living here. That is why he is here.
Now, tell me why it is a good thing to deport him to Rwanda.
To discourage others
Every case will have a bleeding heart story attached. There is no happy or easy solution to this. But the best solution - for everyone - is the Australian solution. We cannot just let them all in, that’s giving up all control of our borders and will encourage yet more to come, 100,000s a year
Oz shows that you have to be tough for a few months, then they stop. I profoundly doubt the UKG has the bollocks to do an Oz. so we will yield, and the problem will get worse, and the next time around the dilemma will be even more acute
You do not discourage anyone by deporting one individual. Even the government has admitted that only a few hundred at most will be deported.
This is just performative cruelty to an individual who has close family here.
And before you ask what would I do, I put my ideas down a few months back. They were rather more intelligent than this sort of ineffective nonsense.
I think i remember your ideas, despite them being forgettable kittens-n-roses nonsense. But do tell us again
The current Refugee Convention is no longer fit for purpose. The distinction between an asylum seeker and economic migrant is nonsensical. We want to have a sensible level of immigration, which attracts the people we want and gives us some level of control.
So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.
Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.
Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.
Not that any party will propose this.
But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.
That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.
What do you do with immigrants who don't meet the criteria but come from a country with a despot in charge?
Send them back, of course. After all, we now live in a country with a despot in charge - in fact a whole gang of them.
Funny sort of despot that lets you go online and say that.
Says the poster who thinks we have a biased judiciary and don't have independent courts.
@rcs1000 has explained how Switzerland which has pretty much open borders has managed to stop the problem of undocumented migrants getting into the country.
I have yet to see why those proposals would not help the situation here.
Because Switzerland has a land border, and only a land border. Stopping people at the Swiss border does not drown them (and Switzerland has ID cards and Germanic attitudes to policing)
For the first time in our history, our insular status makes us more vulnerable. We are (rightly, of course) not prepared to let people drown in the Channel as they attempt to come here. So we have to let them come here
The only way to deter them is to say Sorry, we will save your life, but if you successfully get here, then we will fly you to Rwanda where you will be safe but it means your entire journey was pointless, thus deterring anyone from copying you, no one will thereafter pay $10k to traffickers to get to… Rwanda
Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.
Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.
To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.
Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.
I respect BR’s arguments as being honest and reasoned.
For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.
1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.) 2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image) 3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag) 4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive) 5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.) 6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs) 7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack) 8) Yorkshire 9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex) 10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply) 11) Dorset (ditto) 12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit) 13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow) 14) Suffolk 15) Westmorland 16) Lancashire 17) Durham 18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it) 19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green) 20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow) 21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts) 22) Leicestershire 23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag) 24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression) 25) Cumberland 26) Lincolnshire 27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such) 28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham) 29) Buckinghamshire 30) Hertfordshire 31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown) 32) Hampshire 33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is) 34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee) 35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid) 36) Rutland 37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?) 38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it). 39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)
Great list. Good work, Sir! This is why I come to PB
Noticeable that, the nearer you get to a county being an imaginable if tiny COUNTRY, the better and more plausible the flag as a flag of independence?
Cornwall has the best claim of any English county to being an independent country. And their flag is the most distinctive
After Cornwall, Kent and Essex have very distinct identities - the men of Kent etc, then Yorkshire at number 8… Northumberland 10
And the counties at the bottom are pretty much the counties you can least imagine having some separate national identity (with the possible exception of Norfolk): Beds, Sussex, Rutland, Hunts, Oxon, Wilts
I wonder if this is true of American states? The most likely to secede is probably Texas. With its distinctive Lone Star flag….
The question is how many you can identify by just looking at the flag.
I’d say, Cornwall Yorkshire Lancashire Essex Kent Warwickshire Maybe Hertfordshire
Also, but only by deduction, Leicestershire and Worcestershire.
Maybe Cambridgeshire, despite its "runner up in a Blue Peter competition, 8-and-under category" appearance.
Mr. B, if Scotland had voted to leave in 2014 it would've left the EU.
That wasn't a problem for the SNP.
The SNP's position was to stay in the EU as a new member which would have been negotiated during the separation process. This is something which people will sensibly dispute was possible, but it was their position and not wholly out of the question.
So you can put forward an argument that it might have been the consequence, but you can't say that was the intention, because the opposite is true.
Oh do fuck off
The SNP could as easily claim it was going to be the 51st state of the USA on independence, and it would be similarly plausible
The EU is bound by treaties between the states, which hinge very carefully on numbers of commissioners, MEPs, etc, plus all the nuanced and delicately negotiated trade laws. The accession of a brand new EU state, iScotland!, would not have been received with a shrug, oh just put a few more chairs out at Strasbourg, we all love kilts
It’s beyond ridiculous
After a YES vote, iScotland would have been out out out the EU. No question. With a decade of negotiation to get back in. As we all now know, to our cost, the EU does not do blithe shrugs
The more interesting question is how the EU would have dealt with rUK. it is quite possible rUK would have had to rBrexit as well, and renegotiate a new Treaty for re-accession, to establish how many MEPs we were entitled to, the status of the border at Berwick, and so forth
You're certainly wrong about rUK having to leave.
As for Scotland's prospects of acceding in a short timescale, I'm less pessimistic than you. After all, all EU law was already enacted in Scotland at that time. There would have needed to be some fudging on how other accession criteria were worked out, but in any case, try to reread my post. All I'm saying is what the policy position was, and it was as I said. Sorry if that fact rubs your ideology up the wrong way, but that's your problem.
Just mad bollocks. You’re on IGNORE until you shape up
For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.
1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.) 2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image) 3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag) 4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive) 5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.) 6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs) 7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack) 8) Yorkshire 9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex) 10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply) 11) Dorset (ditto) 12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit) 13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow) 14) Suffolk 15) Westmorland 16) Lancashire 17) Durham 18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it) 19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green) 20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow) 21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts) 22) Leicestershire 23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag) 24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression) 25) Cumberland 26) Lincolnshire 27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such) 28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham) 29) Buckinghamshire 30) Hertfordshire 31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown) 32) Hampshire 33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is) 34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee) 35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid) 36) Rutland 37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?) 38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it). 39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)
Great list. Good work, Sir! This is why I come to PB
Noticeable that, the nearer you get to a county being an imaginable if tiny COUNTRY, the better and more plausible the flag as a flag of independence?
Cornwall has the best claim of any English county to being an independent country. And their flag is the most distinctive
After Cornwall, Kent and Essex have very distinct identities - the men of Kent etc, then Yorkshire at number 8… Northumberland 10
And the counties at the bottom are pretty much the counties you can least imagine having some separate national identity (with the possible exception of Norfolk): Beds, Sussex, Rutland, Hunts, Oxon, Wilts
I wonder if this is true of American states? The most likely to secede is probably Texas. With its distinctive Lone Star flag….
We held back the glacial advance along the Cromer Holt ridge and then mourned the sacrifice of the forgotten patron saint of England. We gave the nation its first PM and its greatest admiral. All to be placed 38th in a flag parade. Enough. Forth, Wuffingas and reclaim our lands from these lesser men.
@rcs1000 has explained how Switzerland which has pretty much open borders has managed to stop the problem of undocumented migrants getting into the country.
I have yet to see why those proposals would not help the situation here.
Because Switzerland has a land border, and only a land border. Stopping people at the Swiss border does not drown them (and Switzerland has ID cards and Germanic attitudes to policing)
For the first time in our history, our insular status makes us more vulnerable. We are (rightly, of course) not prepared to let people drown in the Channel as they attempt to come here. So we have to let them come here
The only way to deter them is to say Sorry, we will save your life, but if you successfully get here, then we will fly you to Rwanda where you will be safe but it means your entire journey was pointless, thus deterring anyone from copying you, no one will thereafter pay $10k to traffickers to get to… Rwanda
So, Rwanda it is then. Next
Nonsense. Switzerland comes down heavy on those who employ illegals - hence no-one does - hence there is no work if you don’t have the papers - hence no-one comes.
The US in particular resists this approach because very many of the senior republicans who most oppose immigration in the political arena rely on it for their profits in the business arena.
For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.
1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.) 2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image) 3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag) 4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive) 5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.) 6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs) 7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack) 8) Yorkshire 9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex) 10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply) 11) Dorset (ditto) 12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit) 13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow) 14) Suffolk 15) Westmorland 16) Lancashire 17) Durham 18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it) 19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green) 20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow) 21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts) 22) Leicestershire 23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag) 24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression) 25) Cumberland 26) Lincolnshire 27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such) 28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham) 29) Buckinghamshire 30) Hertfordshire 31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown) 32) Hampshire 33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is) 34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee) 35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid) 36) Rutland 37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?) 38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it). 39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)
Great list. Good work, Sir! This is why I come to PB
Noticeable that, the nearer you get to a county being an imaginable if tiny COUNTRY, the better and more plausible the flag as a flag of independence?
Cornwall has the best claim of any English county to being an independent country. And their flag is the most distinctive
After Cornwall, Kent and Essex have very distinct identities - the men of Kent etc, then Yorkshire at number 8… Northumberland 10
And the counties at the bottom are pretty much the counties you can least imagine having some separate national identity (with the possible exception of Norfolk): Beds, Sussex, Rutland, Hunts, Oxon, Wilts
I wonder if this is true of American states? The most likely to secede is probably Texas. With its distinctive Lone Star flag….
Definitely something in that. Perhaps because those which are most plausible are those with some history of standing alone/apart? I suspect the flags of Cornwall, Kent, Essex are rather older than those of Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire etc which have had to come along and create flags after all the good colours/emblems have been taken. No excuse for quite so much red/yellow and light blue/green though.
The flags of Devon and Dorset date back to only 2003 and 2008 respectively, according to Wiki - and are very clearly at the least inspired by Saint Piran's Flag (which itself is 19th century).
Your analogy would be more convincing were it not for the fact that we’re talking about an agreement made just a few years ago by the same government. We’re not talking about righting some great historical wrong: we’re talking about the Conservatives making signing this treaty their central manifesto pledge and now, a short time later, decrying the exact same treaty as fundamentally broken.
Just like when debating with @HYUFD when he is on a roll I get the feeling that you can state this transparently obvious truth to @Bart as often as you want and the essential truthness of it still won't get through to him.
To be charitable I hope he ( @Bart ) is actually saying that he gets this just that it is phenomenally bad politics conducted by phenomenally bad politicians.
Although he keeps on forgetting to add that last bit to his posts.
I respect BR’s arguments as being honest and reasoned.
For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.
1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.) 2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image) 3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag) 4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive) 5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.) 6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs) 7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack) 8) Yorkshire 9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex) 10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply) 11) Dorset (ditto) 12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit) 13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow) 14) Suffolk 15) Westmorland 16) Lancashire 17) Durham 18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it) 19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green) 20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow) 21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts) 22) Leicestershire 23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag) 24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression) 25) Cumberland 26) Lincolnshire 27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such) 28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham) 29) Buckinghamshire 30) Hertfordshire 31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown) 32) Hampshire 33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is) 34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee) 35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid) 36) Rutland 37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?) 38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it). 39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)
Great list. Good work, Sir! This is why I come to PB
Noticeable that, the nearer you get to a county being an imaginable if tiny COUNTRY, the better and more plausible the flag as a flag of independence?
Cornwall has the best claim of any English county to being an independent country. And their flag is the most distinctive
After Cornwall, Kent and Essex have very distinct identities - the men of Kent etc, then Yorkshire at number 8… Northumberland 10
And the counties at the bottom are pretty much the counties you can least imagine having some separate national identity (with the possible exception of Norfolk): Beds, Sussex, Rutland, Hunts, Oxon, Wilts
I wonder if this is true of American states? The most likely to secede is probably Texas. With its distinctive Lone Star flag….
The question is how many you can identify by just looking at the flag.
I’d say, Cornwall Yorkshire Lancashire Essex Kent Warwickshire Maybe Hertfordshire
Also, but only by deduction, Leicestershire and Worcestershire.
For me, Cornwall, Devon, Essex, Kent, Cheshire, Lancashire, Northumberland, Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Leicestershire. And I could have made a stab at Derbyshire through semi-familoarity and Nottinghamshire with the Robin Hood thing. And Rutland because of Ruddles beer. A bit of knowledge of county cricket helps.
I know we're unlikely to get any joined up thinking from this deeply unserious government, but what actually is their claim for Rwanda?
Is that Rwanda is so horrible, would-be users of people smugglers - almost 'entirely genuine asylum seekers escaping persecution - will choose torture or death instead?
Or is that Rwanda is kind, like Britain but with more sunshine? The asylum seekers will be well looked after - the people smugglers are doing a useful job?
It’s because it is safe, but fairly grim
If you’re an asylum seeker (which most of them are not, they are economic migrants) then you would be happy with safety alone. If they are not happy, then it was something else that attracted them all the way to the UK, it wasn’t “asylum” per se
Do it, Priti, do it
Most are asylum seekers whose claims - once processed - are granted.
Because they nearly always dump alll ID and when they are asked why they are in Britain they have a plausible reason - gay, Christian, Wicca, whatever - and we are legally obliged to accept them as asylum seekers, We have no way of disproving their stories
If you’ve just come over on a boat and you’re asked why, do you say, Well I was a chef in Isfahan but I thought the wages seemed better in Cheltenham? No, you do not
It's pretty obvious the system is gamed, and there's a whole industry around it.
@DavidL relayed a story of how a whole village clubbed together to crowdfund the fittest and most enterprising young man they could find to get to the UK and claim asylum on the basis he'd then work and send remittances back.
The evidence is in the 80%+ of occupants of the boats who are fit young men, usually from slightly higher-income middle countries (like Iran/Iraq/Syria etc.) who can afford the people smuggling fees and have good networks.
The problem is that the asylum rules are drawn so broadly as it makes it very hard to refuse people who turn up on these shores and destroy their documents, and you basically need to give them the benefit of the doubt. On top of that you have the rights in the ECHR that give another grounds for appeal. So the only constraint is Darwinian: how hard you make it to get into the Chunnel, a lorry, or 50%+ of the way across the channel. Once they land there's a whole immigration industry here that has another business model around maximising claims.
That is neither ethical or fair. There is a space for sentimentality and compassion around it, but that's almost entirely in one direction at the moment and it needs to be qualified.
Mr. B, if Scotland had voted to leave in 2014 it would've left the EU.
That wasn't a problem for the SNP.
The SNP's position was to stay in the EU as a new member which would have been negotiated during the separation process. This is something which people will sensibly dispute was possible, but it was their position and not wholly out of the question.
So you can put forward an argument that it might have been the consequence, but you can't say that was the intention, because the opposite is true.
Oh do fuck off
The SNP could as easily claim it was going to be the 51st state of the USA on independence, and it would be similarly plausible
The EU is bound by treaties between the states, which hinge very carefully on numbers of commissioners, MEPs, etc, plus all the nuanced and delicately negotiated trade laws. The accession of a brand new EU state, iScotland!, would not have been received with a shrug, oh just put a few more chairs out at Strasbourg, we all love kilts
It’s beyond ridiculous
After a YES vote, iScotland would have been out out out the EU. No question. With a decade of negotiation to get back in. As we all now know, to our cost, the EU does not do blithe shrugs
The more interesting question is how the EU would have dealt with rUK. it is quite possible rUK would have had to rBrexit as well, and renegotiate a new Treaty for re-accession, to establish how many MEPs we were entitled to, the status of the border at Berwick, and so forth
You're certainly wrong about rUK having to leave.
As for Scotland's prospects of acceding in a short timescale, I'm less pessimistic than you. After all, all EU law was already enacted in Scotland at that time. There would have needed to be some fudging on how other accession criteria were worked out, but in any case, try to reread my post. All I'm saying is what the policy position was, and it was as I said. Sorry if that fact rubs your ideology up the wrong way, but that's your problem.
Just mad bollocks. You’re on IGNORE until you shape up
I think Sturgeon's challenge will be keeping her coalition together (inside the SNP) whilst sounding coherent about what may happen post-independence.
The *only* sane option for iScotland would be membership of the EU. Who have made statements that they would be interested in fast-tracking membership as they did for Finland and I assume they will now do for Ukraine.
Doing so would necessitate a shadow period where newly iScotland isn't yet a member but is brought under the EU umbrella with regards to things like backing up the currency. And it sounds like the EU are up for that.
The challenge is that I'm not clear everyone in the SNP is up for that!
Mr. B, if Scotland had voted to leave in 2014 it would've left the EU.
That wasn't a problem for the SNP.
The SNP's position was to stay in the EU as a new member which would have been negotiated during the separation process. This is something which people will sensibly dispute was possible, but it was their position and not wholly out of the question.
So you can put forward an argument that it might have been the consequence, but you can't say that was the intention, because the opposite is true.
Oh do fuck off
The SNP could as easily claim it was going to be the 51st state of the USA on independence, and it would be similarly plausible
The EU is bound by treaties between the states, which hinge very carefully on numbers of commissioners, MEPs, etc, plus all the nuanced and delicately negotiated trade laws. The accession of a brand new EU state, iScotland!, would not have been received with a shrug, oh just put a few more chairs out at Strasbourg, we all love kilts
It’s beyond ridiculous
After a YES vote, iScotland would have been out out out the EU. No question. With a decade of negotiation to get back in. As we all now know, to our cost, the EU does not do blithe shrugs
The more interesting question is how the EU would have dealt with rUK. it is quite possible rUK would have had to rBrexit as well, and renegotiate a new Treaty for re-accession, to establish how many MEPs we were entitled to, the status of the border at Berwick, and so forth
You're certainly wrong about rUK having to leave.
As for Scotland's prospects of acceding in a short timescale, I'm less pessimistic than you. After all, all EU law was already enacted in Scotland at that time. There would have needed to be some fudging on how other accession criteria were worked out, but in any case, try to reread my post. All I'm saying is what the policy position was, and it was as I said. Sorry if that fact rubs your ideology up the wrong way, but that's your problem.
Just mad bollocks. You’re on IGNORE until you shape up
You're making the same myth that many Remainers love to say regarding Brexit and what is or is not impossible.
EU law is not some divine and immutable law, it is whatever EU states say that it is.
The day after a Scottish Yes vote, Scotland would have still been a part of the UK and negotiations would have had to begin for a divorce, as happened with Britain and the EU. This could have taken many years.
In that time, if the EU member states unanimously agreed a new Treaty allowing Scottish accession from the day Scotland became an independent state, then Scotland would have been a part of the UK one day, and an independent EU state the next.
All it would require is unanimity, which might or might not have been forthcoming. You can't count your chickens either way.
Comments
In any case it is the UK government and the UK government alone that gets to decide whether or not to grant an indyref2
In Quebec the Parti Quebecois agitated similarly, but once they lost the second referendum the voters got tired of it all and sent them packing. You can only ask the voters so many times before they decide enough is enough and no means no.
Fantastic signing at the price.
If you’ve just come over on a boat and you’re asked why, do you say, Well I was a chef in Isfahan but I thought the wages seemed better in Cheltenham? No, you do not
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2022/06/14/electric-car-grant-scrapped-earlier-expected/
If the people of Northern Ireland had elected a government pledged to maintaining the Protocol it might be different, but they didn't.
"The UK offered protection to 14,734 people (including dependants) in 2021, in the form of asylum, humanitarian protection, alternative forms of leave and resettlement. Resettlement accounted for 1,587 of those people (11%); this does not include the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, as the first eligible person was relocated under the scheme on 6 January 2022 (after the period referred to in this publication), and will be included in future releases. The number of people offered protection was 49% higher than the previous year, and similar to levels seen from 2015 to 2018."
"There were 48,540 asylum applications (main applicants only) in the UK in 2021, this is 63% more than the previous year. This is higher than at the peak of the European Migration crisis (36,546 applications in 2015-2016) and the highest number of applications for almost two decades (since 2003)."
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2021/summary-of-latest-statistics
114-6 at tea, 139 all out. Game over at 4.45
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1536486919080656898
I thought protecting the Belfast Agreement was what this was all supposed to be about? Have people forgotten that, the Protocol is meant to be a means to an end, the Belfast Agreement is the higher law and principle here.
I understand that you will not accept this and that you will find forms of words to justify your blatant hypocrisy, but I just thought it was worth pointing out. You believe in democracy when it suits you. You are happy to see it ignored when it doesn't.
Yet now we see that Scexit alone would have been a nightmare, PLUS the separation from rUK
Bzzzpt. Fail
All Sturgeon has to do is persuade a majority of UK MPs in the British parliament, and she will get another vote. If her cause is just, she will do that. She will probably have a decent chance after GE 24
it can’t be done any other way. Scottish indy would profoundly affect everyone in the UK, Scots, English, Welsh and NI, so the UK parliament should and must decide
if she goes for a wildcat vote, good luck to her. It would be suicide
If post-changes Stormont decides to terminate the Protocol as per the Stormont Optout, then that would be their prerogative, they still have it.
Just because Stormont has a right to terminate the Protocol if they choose to do so, doesn't deny Parliament the right to change how it is implemented, if it chooses to do so. Both are consistent with each other and Stormont can vote when it votes based upon the Protocol as it is implemented at the time.
Of course Stormont would need to be sitting to even have a vote, something it isn't even doing at present.
Their democratically expressed views are to be determined by the government they elect and as it stands today, they haven't elected a government, therefore it is impossible to say what they have or have not voted for.
That is democracy under the Belfast Agreement. If you're calling for the scrapping of the Belfast Agreement, and replacing it with First Past the Post majoritarian rule for Northern Ireland then go ahead, but that isn't the system they've got today.
Scotland voted to stay in the UK, and was then denied its wish to stay in the EU. Scexit is now the only route back into the EU - and might well be economically more attractive than it was the first time around.
I would still vote against Scottish independence, were I Scottish, but I would not deny them the choice.
So opt out of the Conventions, agree an annual number of migrants with a points based system: skills, family connections etc, after proper open debate in Parliament, followed by necessary planning for infrastructure / services etc. Merely being a refugee and persecuted is insufficient to get you a place - save in very exceptional circumstances. Applications made from outside the U.K. only - thus disincentivising travel here. If you get accepted,you get flown here safely.
Plus @rcs1000's measures to discourage the black economy.
Something along these lines would be better than what we have now.
Not that any party will propose this.
But if I do set up "The Kittens'n'Roses" party (and frankly I feel it is mighty churlish of the country not to put me in charge) then something like this will be in my manifesto.
That and making people have nice front gardens and banning plastic grass.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/swedish-air-force-pays-tribute-to-spy-plane-crew-shot-down-by-russia-70-years-ago
(In international airspace, of course.)
Oh my lord. My god. It is unutterably bleak
One and a half million people (possibly many more) deliberately and systematically killed, and their culture erased. At one point they were drowning orphans in the Euphrates en masse. 2,000 children herded together and driven into a river. Girls and women would be literally bound together, like sheaves of wheat, and tossed down a gorge. They were raped and tortured first, of course
So because you fancied living in England rather than Italy or France you broke the law and you might end up safe - but in Rwanda? Whatever
That wasn't a problem for the SNP.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p-Ta83V7iw
https://www.middleeasteye.net/discover/meatballs-militancy-swedish-king-bane-ottoman-empire
So what would you as Kittens'n'Roses inaugural PM do about people who chose to circumvent your policy by crossing the boat in a dinghy, fuelling people smugglers who are responsible for criminal people smuggling and people drowning?
I'm curious how much more the measures to discourage the black economy can be without making the "hostile environment" worse though. Its already a criminal offence that can lead to imprisonment if you employ or house people here without the right documentation, yet people still do it.
Which is a no-brainer imo. Boris Johnson is quite unusual for a politician in having zero principles. There's no evidence Sturgeon is of that ilk. She wants an independent Scotland asap. It's about how to get there, tactics and strategy. She has to get and win a Referendum whilst knowing that to lose it probably kills the dream for her lifetime. Big challenge but she's up for it. I interpret what she says and does through this lens and it stacks up perfectly. Least so far.
So you can put forward an argument that it might have been the consequence, but you can't say that was the intention, because the opposite is true.
That’s actually quite a thoughtful, considered and judicious proposal, not the usual “Stop illegal employment!” nonsense
I agree with almost everything you say
However you do not address the fundamental issue. Which is this: right now any migrant in the EU who wants to come to the UK knows that if they get in a boat at Calais they will be allowed into Britain, it is really quite safe albeit scary (very very few drown) and once you are in British waters, the UK shrugs and accepts you. No one is sent “home”
Why would your proposal stop that? Are you going to literally push back the boats? Shoot at them? No, you are not
So you don’t solve the current problem. The pull factor across the Channel
Under the terms of the Belfast Agreement, the people of NI have elected a government that an integral part of demands that the Protocol is scrapped or seriously changed in implementation. That is what the people of NI have voted for, unless you change the Belfast agreement.
I know the law no longer matters these days so put this down to my innate legally-inspired pedantry. But still ...
As for the colourable statement that a 19 year old with no family around them is safe in a country with few natural resources, where subsistence farming is one of the main economic activities and which recently had a vicious civil war and genocide, well.....
Just as Westminster legislated to legalise abortion last time power sharing failed. 👍
The SNP could as easily claim it was going to be the 51st state of the USA on independence, and it would be similarly plausible
The EU is bound by treaties between the states, which hinge very carefully on numbers of commissioners, MEPs, etc, plus all the nuanced and delicately negotiated trade laws. The accession of a brand new EU state, iScotland!, would not have been received with a shrug, oh just put a few more chairs out at Strasbourg, we all love kilts
It’s beyond ridiculous
After a YES vote, iScotland would have been out out out the EU. No question. With a decade of negotiation to get back in. As we all now know, to our cost, the EU does not do blithe shrugs
The more interesting question is how the EU would have dealt with rUK. it is quite possible rUK would have had to rBrexit as well, and renegotiate a new Treaty for re-accession, to establish how many MEPs we were entitled to, the status of the border at Berwick, and so forth
But I don't claim to have complete answers. It's a start which is more than can be said for most of the other proposed solutions. It's a start because it questions the accepted shibboleth that being a refugee should automatically allow you to get into a country. That is the problem because pretty much an unlimited number of people can probably lawfully claim to be refugees. So a country has no control but has legal obligations so is forced into making it as hard as possible for people to get here.
I don't have an answer to the boat problem. Yet.
The UK government has always ensured it has the final say on the Union
So we are back to Rwanda, then. At least we cleared that up
14k/48k
You can see all of the county flags here. https://britishcountyflags.com/english-county-flags/
For the edification of pb.com, I shall rank them from best to worst.
1) Cornwall (a proper flag, this. Not too fussy and wouldn't look the least bit daft as a national flag. Attractive and unusual colour combination.)
2) Kent (admirably simple and a nice image)
3) Devon (again, simple, elegant, quite convincing as a country flag)
4) Essex (bold, slightly aggressive)
5) Cheshire (I originally had this as top, which was a little partisan. I've tried to be more neutral about it. But I genuinely do like the colour combination and the overall effect.)
6) Somerset (simple and distinctive – loses marks for red and yellow – though there is sadly quiet a lot of red and yellow in subsequent designs)
7) Warwickshire (not just a bear, but a bear with, I don’t know, some sort of coat rack)
8) Yorkshire
9) Middlesex (nice flag, but clearly copied from Essex)
10) Northumberland (if you must do red and yellow do it simply)
11) Dorset (ditto)
12) Surrey (well this is bold and interesting, at least. Reminiscent of Croatia’s football kit)
13) Staffordshire (I like the layout and the emblem – would have been higher with a nicer colour scheme than red and yellow)
14) Suffolk
15) Westmorland
16) Lancashire
17) Durham
18) Derbyshire (fairly nice design – but blue and light green is even uglier than red and yellow. And if there is a white or yellow border around the green cross they should be bold enough to show it)
19) Gloucestershire (again, loses points for the blue/green)
20) Northamptonshire (brown and yellow is no better than red and yellow)
21) Worcesterhire (I like neither the colour scheme nor the wiggly lines, and pears are silly, but the sum is actually more pleasing than the parts)
22) Leicestershire
23) Berkshire (looks a bit more like an illustration from a child’s storybook than a flag)
24) Shropshire (Rather frighteningly busy but an agreeable enough overall impression)
25) Cumberland
26) Lincolnshire
27) Cambridgehire (possibly the dullest flag of the lot, but not ugly as such)
28) Nottinghamshire (loses points for Nottinghamshire’s irritating persistent obsession with Robin Hood, who is just as associated with several other counties – it is the baddy who came from Nottingham)
29) Buckinghamshire
30) Hertfordshire
31) Herefordshire (much, much too much brown)
32) Hampshire
33) Wiltshire (I’m not sure what those stripes are doing, not what that thing in the middle is)
34) Oxfordshire (far, far too busy – looks like it’s been designed by committee)
35) Huntingdonshire (quite simple, but also quite stupid)
36) Rutland
37) Sussex (I quite like the blue and yellow. But six tiny birds in a triangle?)
38) Norfolk (this is just plain uninspiring, and looks like someone creature has walked across it).
39) Bedfordshire (far too much going on, and none of it good)
Much like their optimistic to the point of lunacy approach to 'keeping the pound'.
That is true. An integral part of it demands it is scrapped, that is what the people voted for. Another part doesn't want it being scrapped. Unfortunately normally the party that is willing to say no the loudest tends to get its way, and right now that's the DUP, just as in the past Martin McGuinness could do the same thing. That is what the Belfast Agreement permits.
If the DUP and Sinn Fein could resolve their differences between them, then Truss wouldn't need to act, but as it stands they aren't doing so, and we're guarantors of the Belfast Agreement so its our responsibility to act accordingly now.
This is like a knock off version.
I have yet to see why those proposals would not help the situation here.
As for Scotland's prospects of acceding in a short timescale, I'm less pessimistic than you. After all, all EU law was already enacted in Scotland at that time. There would have needed to be some fudging on how other accession criteria were worked out, but in any case, try to reread my post. All I'm saying is what the policy position was, and it was as I said. Sorry if that fact rubs your ideology up the wrong way, but that's your problem.
Noticeable that, the nearer you get to a county being an imaginable if tiny COUNTRY, the better and more plausible the flag as a flag of independence?
Cornwall has the best claim of any English county to being an independent country. And their flag is the most distinctive
After Cornwall, Kent and Essex have very distinct identities - the men of Kent etc, then Yorkshire at number 8… Northumberland 10
And the counties at the bottom are pretty much the counties you can least imagine having some separate national identity (with the possible exception of Norfolk): Beds, Sussex, Rutland, Hunts, Oxon, Wilts
I wonder if this is true of American states? The most likely to secede is probably Texas. With its distinctive Lone Star flag….
Do I have a right to just turn up uninvited and claim citizenship?
No excuse for quite so much red/yellow and light blue/green though.
I’d say,
Cornwall
Yorkshire
Lancashire
Essex
Kent
Warwickshire
Maybe Hertfordshire
Also, but only by deduction, Leicestershire and Worcestershire.
For the first time in our history, our insular status makes us more vulnerable. We are (rightly, of course) not prepared to let people drown in the Channel as they attempt to come here. So we have to let them come here
The only way to deter them is to say Sorry, we will save your life, but if you successfully get here, then we will fly you to Rwanda where you will be safe but it means your entire journey was pointless, thus deterring anyone from copying you, no one will thereafter pay $10k to traffickers to get to… Rwanda
So, Rwanda it is then. Next
All to be placed 38th in a flag parade.
Enough. Forth, Wuffingas and reclaim our lands from these lesser men.
No surprise to see it was chosen in a public vote, hah.
The US in particular resists this approach because very many of the senior republicans who most oppose immigration in the political arena rely on it for their profits in the business arena.
@DavidL relayed a story of how a whole village clubbed together to crowdfund the fittest and most enterprising young man they could find to get to the UK and claim asylum on the basis he'd then work and send remittances back.
The evidence is in the 80%+ of occupants of the boats who are fit young men, usually from slightly higher-income middle countries (like Iran/Iraq/Syria etc.) who can afford the people smuggling fees and have good networks.
The problem is that the asylum rules are drawn so broadly as it makes it very hard to refuse people who turn up on these shores and destroy their documents, and you basically need to give them the benefit of the doubt. On top of that you have the rights in the ECHR that give another grounds for appeal. So the only constraint is Darwinian: how hard you make it to get into the Chunnel, a lorry, or 50%+ of the way across the channel. Once they land there's a whole immigration industry here that has another business model around maximising claims.
That is neither ethical or fair. There is a space for sentimentality and compassion around it, but that's almost entirely in one direction at the moment and it needs to be qualified.
The *only* sane option for iScotland would be membership of the EU. Who have made statements that they would be interested in fast-tracking membership as they did for Finland and I assume they will now do for Ukraine.
Doing so would necessitate a shadow period where newly iScotland isn't yet a member but is brought under the EU umbrella with regards to things like backing up the currency. And it sounds like the EU are up for that.
The challenge is that I'm not clear everyone in the SNP is up for that!
EU law is not some divine and immutable law, it is whatever EU states say that it is.
The day after a Scottish Yes vote, Scotland would have still been a part of the UK and negotiations would have had to begin for a divorce, as happened with Britain and the EU. This could have taken many years.
In that time, if the EU member states unanimously agreed a new Treaty allowing Scottish accession from the day Scotland became an independent state, then Scotland would have been a part of the UK one day, and an independent EU state the next.
All it would require is unanimity, which might or might not have been forthcoming. You can't count your chickens either way.