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.
No, I think (with justification) that judges sometimes start with their conclusions and choose or adapt law to fit them. That doesn't make them biased or not independent, just human.
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)
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.
Strangely, I agree with you there: I'd be happy with safe and legal routes with control/limits.
However, I hear a lot from the other side on safe and legal routes - which would naturally increase the draw - but very little on controls/limits.
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)
An interesting map, flawed once you see that it still thinks the IOW is part of Hampshire. How many decades out of date is 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….
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.
Oi! Saint Edmund came from the Stour Valley; nowhere near Norfolk
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).
Devon was cooked up in a competition on local radio - completely bogus
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
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)."
The two are not necessarily inconsistent. You're comparing 2021 acceptances (which will refer to people who mostly applied in 2016-2020) to the number of people applying in 2021. And the number of applications per year has varied between close to 100k in the early 2000s to as low as 15k.
That said, your point is in general correct.
If look at acceptances vs refusals, and in most years (2021 was an exception), the ratio is about 65 refusals against 35 acceptances.
To be clear: His lawyer went to see him at his penal colony, and was told there was "no such convict". No information was given about where he might be now.
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.
There was at least one summer of Panini Stickers for County Cricket - might have been a one off. Shiny silver county badges. First time I'd seen the ashes trophy and had no concept of the scale...
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.
I'd support this.
If Starmer picked it up he might draw a lot of Tory swing voters away, but I doubt he can dance as it's Nixon goes to China stuff.
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.
Oi! Saint Edmund came from the Stour Valley; nowhere near Norfolk
Yes but he was lost probably on the Norfolk/Suffolk border, defending the realm centred on the bishopric of Elmham, in Norfolk. Norfolk. Nor folk. Nor damn freaking folk. The greatest county on Earth.
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.
Oi! Saint Edmund came from the Stour Valley; nowhere near Norfolk
Yes but he was lost probably on the Norfolk/Suffolk border, defending the realm centred on the bishopric of Elmham, in Norfolk. Norfolk. Nor folk. Nor damn freaking folk. The greatest county on Earth.
To be clear: His lawyer went to see him at his penal colony, and was told there was "no such convict". No information was given about where he might be now.
@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.
And the same in the UK. Which is why this government is not cracking down on illegal employers.
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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
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.
Nutters are out in force today, jingo bells everywhere
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)."
The two are not necessarily inconsistent. You're comparing 2021 acceptances (which will refer to people who mostly applied in 2016-2020) to the number of people applying in 2021. And the number of applications per year has varied between close to 100k in the early 2000s to as low as 15k.
That said, your point is in general correct.
If look at acceptances vs refusals, and in most years (2021 was an exception), the ratio is about 65 refusals against 35 acceptances.
See:
Yes there is a lag and in 2021 both acceptances and applications were up which suggested that the 30% level (for acceptances) was about right. As you have kindly confirmed.
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.
Remember seeing an original Wilts bustard, mounted, in the museum at Salisbury, in a very pleasant building in the Cathedral Close.
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)."
The two are not necessarily inconsistent. You're comparing 2021 acceptances (which will refer to people who mostly applied in 2016-2020) to the number of people applying in 2021. And the number of applications per year has varied between close to 100k in the early 2000s to as low as 15k.
That said, your point is in general correct.
If look at acceptances vs refusals, and in most years (2021 was an exception), the ratio is about 65 refusals against 35 acceptances.
See:
The biggest problem with the asylum system in the UK, it would seem, is that we have absolutely ridiculous processing times. The time between an asylum seeker coming to the UK, having their application rejected, and then being deported is in the years - during which period there is a high likelihood the asylum seeker will be lost.
Putting my economist hat on for a second, but if you're a valid asylum seeker, wouldn't you want a super quick processing time? And if you are an economic migrant posing as an asylum seeker, wouldn't you want to go to a country which will take years?
Wouldn't properly funding our asylum services perhaps be a sensible cost saving measure?
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)."
The two are not necessarily inconsistent. You're comparing 2021 acceptances (which will refer to people who mostly applied in 2016-2020) to the number of people applying in 2021. And the number of applications per year has varied between close to 100k in the early 2000s to as low as 15k.
That said, your point is in general correct.
If look at acceptances vs refusals, and in most years (2021 was an exception), the ratio is about 65 refusals against 35 acceptances.
See:
Yes there is a lag and in 2021 both acceptances and applications were up which suggested that the 30% level (for acceptances) was about right. As you have kindly confirmed.
(Very small point of pedantry: The proportion of people accepted is a little bit higher than the proportion of claims accepted. The number of claims is not the number of people, and families are meaningfully more likely to be granted asylum status that single 20 year old men.)
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.
Oi! Saint Edmund came from the Stour Valley; nowhere near Norfolk
Yes but he was lost probably on the Norfolk/Suffolk border, defending the realm centred on the bishopric of Elmham, in Norfolk. Norfolk. Nor folk. Nor damn freaking folk. The greatest county on Earth.
You had Latin-speaking wolves once upon a time?
We had Lady Julian. All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well Norfolk is the alpha and omega of counties. Fact!
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?
No. But if you had to flee Britain because it had had a civil war and half the country had been laid waste and you were at risk because you had campaigned against the regime in charge and you got to Canada I would think you might want the right to have your claim to join your family there be considered properly. Not simply removed and dumped in Myanmar, say.
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!
Do you think the ECB would agree to fix the exchange rate between the Scottish Currency and the Euro, on Day 1 as they leave the Pound, and with the SC having never been exposed to the market?
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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Most of the answers to British problems are to “go Swiss”.
They have a skilled workforce, high productivity, a modest wealth tax, good infrastructure (including an excellent rail service), and a high degree of local devolution across four sprechenraums.
OK the food is bland and overpriced, and the cities rather forgettable, but we don’t need to take everything.
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.
Remember seeing an original Wilts bustard, mounted, in the museum at Salisbury, in a very pleasant building in the Cathedral Close.
Despite living on the western side of the plain I've yet to see one of the re-introduced birds, but my parents (more centrally located) have done. Nice to see, and similar to the crane re-introduction to the Somerset levels.
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!
Do you think the ECB would agree to fix the exchange rate between the Scottish Currency and the Euro, on Day 1 as they leave the Pound, and with the SC having never been exposed to the market?
Had to think about that for a bit. Too much cricket talk today...
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.
I'd support this.
If Starmer picked it up he might draw a lot of Tory swing voters away, but I doubt he can dance as it's Nixon goes to China stuff.
Starmer just doesn't have the imagination needed for The Kittens'n'Roses party.
Anyway I have just received some good news so am off to do a happy dance in the garden.
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)."
The two are not necessarily inconsistent. You're comparing 2021 acceptances (which will refer to people who mostly applied in 2016-2020) to the number of people applying in 2021. And the number of applications per year has varied between close to 100k in the early 2000s to as low as 15k.
That said, your point is in general correct.
If look at acceptances vs refusals, and in most years (2021 was an exception), the ratio is about 65 refusals against 35 acceptances.
See:
The biggest problem with the asylum system in the UK, it would seem, is that we have absolutely ridiculous processing times. The time between an asylum seeker coming to the UK, having their application rejected, and then being deported is in the years - during which period there is a high likelihood the asylum seeker will be lost.
Putting my economist hat on for a second, but if you're a valid asylum seeker, wouldn't you want a super quick processing time? And if you are an economic migrant posing as an asylum seeker, wouldn't you want to go to a country which will take years?
Wouldn't properly funding our asylum services perhaps be a sensible cost saving measure?
So... I was looking at asylum processing times by country, and the good news is that the UK is not worst. That "record" goes to the United States where the wait for an individual hearing "is now 1,751 days, some 58 months or close to five years.".*
The more efficient your processing, the less you are a magnet to economic migrants posing as asylum seekers.
* That's just the wait for your first hearing. Totally bonkers.
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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
No proof that your immoral and absurdly expensive scheme works at all.
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.
There was at least one summer of Panini Stickers for County Cricket - might have been a one off. Shiny silver county badges. First time I'd seen the ashes trophy and had no concept of the scale...
Edit - apparently 1983
The ashes trophy is bigger than the European Cup - until you actually see it.
Most of the answers to British problems are to “go Swiss”.
They have a skilled workforce, high productivity, a modest wealth tax, good infrastructure (including an excellent rail service), and a high degree of local devolution across four sprechenraums.
OK the food is bland and overpriced, and the cities rather forgettable, but we don’t need to take everything.
And we’re already wide open to dodgy foreign money so ahead of the crowd in that respect, at least
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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
You seem to forget that - before Covid - Channel Crossing barely existed 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)
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.
Remember seeing an original Wilts bustard, mounted, in the museum at Salisbury, in a very pleasant building in the Cathedral Close.
Despite living on the western side of the plain I've yet to see one of the re-introduced birds, but my parents (more centrally located) have done. Nice to see, and similar to the crane re-introduction to the Somerset levels.
Ooh, a real treat - like the sea eagles in Scotland, a real improvement to life.
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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
No proof that your immoral and absurdly expensive scheme works at all.
Next.
It worked and is still working, in Australia, which has precisely our problem. Maritime crossings
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
Total bollox,, the ramblings of someone with no clue.
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.
There was at least one summer of Panini Stickers for County Cricket - might have been a one off. Shiny silver county badges. First time I'd seen the ashes trophy and had no concept of the scale...
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.
Remember seeing an original Wilts bustard, mounted, in the museum at Salisbury, in a very pleasant building in the Cathedral Close.
Despite living on the western side of the plain I've yet to see one of the re-introduced birds, but my parents (more centrally located) have done. Nice to see, and similar to the crane re-introduction to the Somerset levels.
Ooh, a real treat - like the sea eagles in Scotland, a real improvement to life.
We have sea eagles here - twice I have seen them circling above the town, a majestic sight - but (presumably) local farmers keep poisoning them so the reintroduction is proving problematic.
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)."
The two are not necessarily inconsistent. You're comparing 2021 acceptances (which will refer to people who mostly applied in 2016-2020) to the number of people applying in 2021. And the number of applications per year has varied between close to 100k in the early 2000s to as low as 15k.
That said, your point is in general correct.
If look at acceptances vs refusals, and in most years (2021 was an exception), the ratio is about 65 refusals against 35 acceptances.
See:
The biggest problem with the asylum system in the UK, it would seem, is that we have absolutely ridiculous processing times. The time between an asylum seeker coming to the UK, having their application rejected, and then being deported is in the years - during which period there is a high likelihood the asylum seeker will be lost.
Putting my economist hat on for a second, but if you're a valid asylum seeker, wouldn't you want a super quick processing time? And if you are an economic migrant posing as an asylum seeker, wouldn't you want to go to a country which will take years?
Wouldn't properly funding our asylum services perhaps be a sensible cost saving measure?
There is another problem with the refugee issue and that is - to paraphrase Eisenhower - we have a Refugee-Industrial complex of charities, lawyers, influential types (plus criminals in the background) that has a lot of voice and influence, and a disproportionate impact on how we deal with things.
I agree with both yours and @Cyclefree suggestions but, even if a party did propose them, the same crowds criticising Rwanda today would be talking about how any such proposals harmed the refugees and were ‘cruel’. I’m sure mental health would crop up a lot more frequently.
The absurdity of the debate is shown by the fact these people flee France to come to the U.K., claiming it’s the only safe haven. it’s a scam, a pisstake, whatever you want to call it.
Scrap the existing laws, remake the legislation and withdraw from the Convention. And start afresh.
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!
Do you think the ECB would agree to fix the exchange rate between the Scottish Currency and the Euro, on Day 1 as they leave the Pound, and with the SC having never been exposed to the market?
Don't know, and I suspect the reality is that they don't know either. The one thing you can guarantee when it comes to the ECB is a mountain of fudge, so frankly its a daft argument to ascribe absolutism to a body that has never ever worked like that.
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)."
The two are not necessarily inconsistent. You're comparing 2021 acceptances (which will refer to people who mostly applied in 2016-2020) to the number of people applying in 2021. And the number of applications per year has varied between close to 100k in the early 2000s to as low as 15k.
That said, your point is in general correct.
If look at acceptances vs refusals, and in most years (2021 was an exception), the ratio is about 65 refusals against 35 acceptances.
See:
The biggest problem with the asylum system in the UK, it would seem, is that we have absolutely ridiculous processing times. The time between an asylum seeker coming to the UK, having their application rejected, and then being deported is in the years - during which period there is a high likelihood the asylum seeker will be lost.
Putting my economist hat on for a second, but if you're a valid asylum seeker, wouldn't you want a super quick processing time? And if you are an economic migrant posing as an asylum seeker, wouldn't you want to go to a country which will take years?
Wouldn't properly funding our asylum services perhaps be a sensible cost saving measure?
So... I was looking at asylum processing times by country, and the good news is that the UK is not worst. That "record" goes to the United States where the wait for an individual hearing "is now 1,751 days, some 58 months or close to five years.".*
The more efficient your processing, the less you are a magnet to economic migrants posing as asylum seekers.
* That's just the wait for your first hearing. Totally bonkers.
But that means properly funding courts and we all know that courts are both the enemy of the people and a waste of taxpayer money ripe for more efficiency cuts.
On topic (sorry I haven’t read the thread, maybe this had been covered?) - the only Wakefield poll that prompted for the YP had David on 1%. Not tempted by 3/1. Value, probably on the lay side. Shame. I think David would make a great MP, but there’s no evidence he’s cutting through.
Off topic. Sterling’s really in the shitter. $1.203. This is a problem for inflation. Time for a decent interest rate rise to show the markets we’re serious. ^1.5%, please, BoE.
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.
Remember seeing an original Wilts bustard, mounted, in the museum at Salisbury, in a very pleasant building in the Cathedral Close.
The most scary thing about Salisbury is the risk of being accosted by the ghost of Ted Heath, demanding that you listen to a recital.
I have a relative who used to be in a choir guest-conducted on occasion by TH, and she hated it.
On topic (sorry I haven’t read the thread, maybe this had been covered?) - the only Wakefield poll that prompted for the YP had David on 1%. Not tempted by 3/1.
Off topic. Sterling’s really in the shitter. This is a problem for inflation. Time for a decent interest rate rise to show the markets we’re serious. ^1.5%, please, BoE.
and collapse the housing market, with the worst off the most hit - no thanks
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.
Remember seeing an original Wilts bustard, mounted, in the museum at Salisbury, in a very pleasant building in the Cathedral Close.
Despite living on the western side of the plain I've yet to see one of the re-introduced birds, but my parents (more centrally located) have done. Nice to see, and similar to the crane re-introduction to the Somerset levels.
Ooh, a real treat - like the sea eagles in Scotland, a real improvement to life.
We have sea eagles here - twice I have seen them circling above the town, a majestic sight - but (presumably) local farmers keep poisoning them so the reintroduction is proving problematic.
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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
No proof that your immoral and absurdly expensive scheme works at all.
Next.
Not likely to work given the government misrepresents what the Rwanda policy does. Only people who claim asylum are caught up in it. You are only likely to claim asylum if you reckon you will have a high chance of success. ie you are genuinely escaping persecution. Otherwise you will opt to disappear into the black economy.
The Rwanda policy will only potentially dissuade genuine people from claiming asylum. It will have zero net effect on Channel crossings.
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.
There was at least one summer of Panini Stickers for County Cricket - might have been a one off. Shiny silver county badges. First time I'd seen the ashes trophy and had no concept of the scale...
Edit - apparently 1983
The ashes trophy is bigger than the European Cup - until you actually see 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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
No proof that your immoral and absurdly expensive scheme works at all.
Next.
Slightly bemused by the equation of "a hundred miles" to "a near infinity".
On topic (sorry I haven’t read the thread, maybe this had been covered?) - the only Wakefield poll that prompted for the YP had David on 1%. Not tempted by 3/1.
Off topic. Sterling’s really in the shitter. This is a problem for inflation. Time for a decent interest rate rise to show the markets we’re serious. ^1.5%, please, BoE.
and collapse the housing market, with the worst off the most hit - no thanks
The worst off neither have a house nor have any realistic chance of getting one.
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!
Do you think the ECB would agree to fix the exchange rate between the Scottish Currency and the Euro, on Day 1 as they leave the Pound, and with the SC having never been exposed to the market?
Don't know, and I suspect the reality is that they don't know either. The one thing you can guarantee when it comes to the ECB is a mountain of fudge, so frankly its a daft argument to ascribe absolutism to a body that has never ever worked like that.
Indeed. I think that solution is the only way of doing it though, but it goes against the accession process that has happpened for every other country. It’s its own sort of fudge though, rebranding the process of going straight from the Pound to the Euro.
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)."
The two are not necessarily inconsistent. You're comparing 2021 acceptances (which will refer to people who mostly applied in 2016-2020) to the number of people applying in 2021. And the number of applications per year has varied between close to 100k in the early 2000s to as low as 15k.
That said, your point is in general correct.
If look at acceptances vs refusals, and in most years (2021 was an exception), the ratio is about 65 refusals against 35 acceptances.
See:
The biggest problem with the asylum system in the UK, it would seem, is that we have absolutely ridiculous processing times. The time between an asylum seeker coming to the UK, having their application rejected, and then being deported is in the years - during which period there is a high likelihood the asylum seeker will be lost.
Putting my economist hat on for a second, but if you're a valid asylum seeker, wouldn't you want a super quick processing time? And if you are an economic migrant posing as an asylum seeker, wouldn't you want to go to a country which will take years?
Wouldn't properly funding our asylum services perhaps be a sensible cost saving measure?
There is another problem with the refugee issue and that is - to paraphrase Eisenhower - we have a Refugee-Industrial complex of charities, lawyers, influential types (plus criminals in the background) that has a lot of voice and influence, and a disproportionate impact on how we deal with things.
I agree with both yours and @Cyclefree suggestions but, even if a party did propose them, the same crowds criticising Rwanda today would be talking about how any such proposals harmed the refugees and were ‘cruel’. I’m sure mental health would crop up a lot more frequently.
The absurdity of the debate is shown by the fact these people flee France to come to the U.K., claiming it’s the only safe haven. it’s a scam, a pisstake, whatever you want to call it.
Scrap the existing laws, remake the legislation and withdraw from the Convention. And start afresh.
I agree with you, and others, that the Refugee Convention needs to be rewritten for the 21st Century.
But the Netherlands is not a country of revolutionary right wingers. That they manage to process 98% of Syrian refugees inside 10 weeks shows it can be done in a lefty-liberal democracy.
And while it costs more money initially, I'm sure it saves money in the long-term, because you don't have people sitting around for years while their applications are processed.
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!
Do you think the ECB would agree to fix the exchange rate between the Scottish Currency and the Euro, on Day 1 as they leave the Pound, and with the SC having never been exposed to the market?
Don't know, and I suspect the reality is that they don't know either. The one thing you can guarantee when it comes to the ECB is a mountain of fudge, so frankly its a daft argument to ascribe absolutism to a body that has never ever worked like that.
This may be controversial, but to be honest, given the way they handled the Azeem Rafiq issue, I am wondering if now is the time to take away their powers over interest rates and let them just focus on the cricket stuff?
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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
You seem to forget that - before Covid - Channel Crossing barely existed at all.
You’re delusional. This is nothing to do with covid, or, if it is associated it is mostly accidental
True story: I remember watching a programme about Channel crossing BY LORRY several years ago (long before Covid). Back then I suddenly thought, Fuck, why don’t they just come by boat? What’s stopping them? It will be much easer and we can’t turn them back because they might drown
It was an epiphany, and it turned out I was right. Once you realise a boat is the best way, there is no going back. As it were. Think of it as like the Wheeled Luggage of Illicit Migration to Britain. Once we all realised wheeled luggage made way more sense, that is what we did, about 30 years after it was invented
BTW we need to put a time frame around our bet
You said “a year” and a 50% drop so I suggest this, as we are near the solstice:
@rcs1000 bets @leon that migrations to the UK by boat, in toto, will be at least 50% down in the period 21 June 2022 to 21 June 2023, from where they were in the period 21 June 2021 to 21 June 2022
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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
The question that needs asking is why we are having Channel crossings now when we didn't 5 years ago.
What has changed? Answer that and we might have some idea of what a possible solution might be.
Re economic migrants entering the UK. It is crucially important to understand that they don't want to be asylum seekers. Because if you're an asylum seeker, you get your photo and fingerprints taken, and there's only a very small chance you will end up ever getting the documentation to stay in the UK.
If, on the other hand, you manage to sneak into the UK without getting caught. Then later, no matter how bad your English, if you claim to be a British citizen, then it's very difficult for the police to do anything about you.
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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
The question that needs asking is why we are having Channel crossings now when we didn't 5 years ago.
What has changed? Answer that and we might have some idea of what a possible solution might be.
See my prior remark. They simply worked out it was the easiest way, and not as dangerous as everyone thought, and impossible to turn back
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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
The question that needs asking is why we are having Channel crossings now when we didn't 5 years ago.
What has changed? Answer that and we might have some idea of what a possible solution might be.
See my prior remark. They simply worked out it was the easiest way, and not as dangerous as everyone thought, and impossible to turn back
So, literally the second Covid hit, they suddenly discovered that crossing the channel by boat was more efficient than more traditional ways?
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?
No. But if you had to flee Britain because it had had a civil war and half the country had been laid waste and you were at risk because you had campaigned against the regime in charge and you got to Canada I would think you might want the right to have your claim to join your family there be considered properly. Not simply removed and dumped in Myanmar, say.
If that was the case I'd be interested in seeking refuge in the first safe country.
And that wasn't the nub of your original argument - there is no civil war in Iran, and nor has half of it been laid waste, although I have no doubt it's not a great place to be if you don't like living under a theocratic Islamist regime.
There are plenty of people from not brilliant countries who aren't being persecuted, but argue they are, together with emphasising their family connections, just so they can move to a richer country where they have a network.
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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
The question that needs asking is why we are having Channel crossings now when we didn't 5 years ago.
What has changed? Answer that and we might have some idea of what a possible solution might be.
See my prior remark. They simply worked out it was the easiest way, and not as dangerous as everyone thought, and impossible to turn back
So, literally the second Covid hit, they suddenly discovered that crossing the channel by boat was more efficient than more traditional ways?
They saw the 75th anniversary of D-Day on the news?
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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
No proof that your immoral and absurdly expensive scheme works at all.
Next.
Slightly bemused by the equation of "a hundred miles" to "a near infinity".
On topic (sorry I haven’t read the thread, maybe this had been covered?) - the only Wakefield poll that prompted for the YP had David on 1%. Not tempted by 3/1.
Off topic. Sterling’s really in the shitter. This is a problem for inflation. Time for a decent interest rate rise to show the markets we’re serious. ^1.5%, please, BoE.
and collapse the housing market, with the worst off the most hit - no thanks
A rise of 1.5%, whilst not pleasent for those of us with mortgages wouldn't collapse the market.
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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
The question that needs asking is why we are having Channel crossings now when we didn't 5 years ago.
What has changed? Answer that and we might have some idea of what a possible solution might be.
See my prior remark. They simply worked out it was the easiest way, and not as dangerous as everyone thought, and impossible to turn back
So, literally the second Covid hit, they suddenly discovered that crossing the channel by boat was more efficient than more traditional ways?
Necessity is the mother of invention. Suddenly no lorries are crossing, coz Covid. Shit, what do you do?
Try something else? Guess so. Oh, wait, look, crossing by boat is a lot easier than we thought and no one is drowning
Back onto cosplay Thatcher's "Fuck the Bill" Bill, I don't know why BR is saying "this is what I proposed" when he has endlessly demanded they invoke Article 16. This goes straight past the A16 provision in the law and seeks to impose a settlement without negotiation. Which is the precise opposite of what A16 was intended to do.
The reality is simple - this government has demonstrated it is incapable of negotiation. So it doesn't want to invoke the A16 negotiation process as it knows it will only negotiate another settlement it doesn't understand. So fuck the bill, just impose a one-sided settlement and then claim to be an honest broker with all the people who now don't want to negotiate a coffee order with us.
Not that it will get through the House of Lords anyway. I can see the "Enemies of the State" headlines now.
It also has serious questions for the UK's integrity. In a few weeks, assuming the current mess isn't resolved, and I don't think it will be with the horror film clowns in charge as at present, I'd like to see polling on the wish for a border poll, and how the Alliance's policy in particular changes on the need for a border poll.
As long as the UK government does not impose a hard border in Ireland when it is removing the border in the Irish Sea, there will be no change in the Alliance's opposition to a border poll
Oh yes, no border at all. Good luck with that. Why do you think Mr Johnson put the one in the Irish Sea, and was so proud of it?
More generally, the Alliance aren'tr opposed to a border poll - they just don't support it. Not the same thing. And if HMG continues to rule NI from the sole point of view of keeping the DUP happy, there will be other reasons for Alliance to change their mind. For instance, wrecking the NI economy.
I attended an event at Westminster a couple of weeks ago where Steven Farry - alliance MP for North Down said they will not decide which way to jump on a border poll until it is announced- but they are happy to take part in discussions around planning one to avoid a Brexit type vote where people are promised anything and everything. They are ore open to a UI than many think.
There cannot be a UI without a border poll which requires the NI Secretary to back one and most probably Stormont to vote for one too. So without the Alliance voting for one there is no majority in the NI Assembly for one. A border poll ironically destroys the Alliance as it is the only main NI party which has almost equal support from Unionists and Nationalists.
If the Alliance took sides in a border poll it would become just another Nationalist or Unionist party
Their leader at Westminster says they will take a side but will not announce which until a poll is called.
The border poll requirement is set out in the GFA - deliberately vague but no Stormont vote required.
The moment the Alliance take a side in a border poll they are destroyed as a political party. No longer neutral they would either be a Nationalist party like SF and the SDLP so their Unionist voters would go to the UUP most likely or a Unionist party like the DUP or UUP so their Nationalist voters would go to the SDLP most likely.
There may therefore never be a border poll as it requires the NI Secretary to agree to one under the GFA and the NI Secretary won't and doesn't have to unless there is a clear majority at Stormont for one which there won't be as it is in the Alliance's interests to stay neutral and never have one
I believe in theory you are correct, but politically you are assuming too much.
You make the assumption that sectarianism trumps all else in the province. I do not believe that to be the case. To quote Bill Clinton "It's the economy stupid".
If the North Channel border was allowing NI businesses to thrive in the EU, and the removal of the protocol stops that dead in its tracks, and it might, it will be noted, and minds will change.
How will the removal of the North Channel border stop that?
The introduction of an Irish land border might stop it, but the removal of the Channel border is a different question, not the same one. You make it sound as if the Channel border is a positive to be desired in its own right, as opposed to the lack of an Irish land border being a positive to be desired.
The proposed legislation explicitly states no new regulations or checks can be done on the Irish land border. That means that the Good Friday Agreement is protected.
Because the EU are perfectly entitled to consider an invisible border at Dundalk under the Brexit deal, even it to protect sensibilities they do not put up armed security posts and barriers.
It isn't just a case of turning trucks away at Dundalk. Hauliers will not move goods if there is a possibility they will be returned to sender should paperwork be out of place at the point of destination.
And this isn't the EU being unreasonable it is their entitlement under Johnson and Frost's "oven ready" dog's dinner.
And under Liz Truss's proposed Bill there will be no new border checks at the NI/EU border so that invisible border is maintained.
Frost's deal was a version 1.0 to get Brexit done, its done now, we need to update it not keep going even though we now know what is working and what isn't.
It wasn't sold by Frost and Johnson as an "oven ready" committment only to avoid HMG's blushes to get "Brexit done", and once Brexit was done the deal expires, and the ECJ can go to hell.
In yours and Liz Truss's magical childlike world where Irish Prime Minister's are called "Tea Socks" your narrative might work. In the cut and thrust of International relationships we are heading towards a trade war.
I think memories have faded to just what a fecking mess we were in in 2019. There was no consensus in parliament. Time was short because of artificial rules. The EU were being shits (that's allowed, how they behave is up to them and it was important to show that Brexit was a bad idea).
We had to resolve the issues. The government did that. Yes the deal is imperfect. Yes the EU is being an arse over inspections between rUK and NI, far more so than for any other entry point. You can say why did the government lie about how good its deal was all along - it did what it had to do.
We now need to move forward and make changes. So what - every deal gets updated. Things change.
Utter nonsense.
You are relying on the goodwill of the EU not to stick security barriers between the North and South. Your idiot Government is telling the EU, "we have you over a barrel because we don't believe you will sacrifice peace in Ireland to fulfill your rights in a trade arrangements we agreed to. We dare you to set up barriers, we hold all the cards, f*** you!"
Your view and the pirate's narrative is absolutely absurd. We signed an international treaty we had no intentions of fulfilling? That being so, the EU are Neville Chamberlain waving his declaration at Heston Aerodrome, and we are...
International treaties are only broken by scoundrels or fools.
The BBC has agreed to pay £30,000 in damages to a British Bangladeshi Labour councillor after it mixed her up with Apsana Begum in a news item about the MP facing housing fraud charges.
A statement read out in court on Tuesday said: “The misidentification caused Ms Begum particular distress because it seemed another example of the BBC, and the media generally, misidentifying BAME (black, Asian and minority ethnic) people, which fed into racist tropes.
Presumably, someone at the BBC Googled the name and took an image from there without knowing what the correct person looked like.
I object to the idea that this is restricted to non-white people. The Guardian managed to pay tribute to Johan Cryuff by printing a picture of Rob Rensenbrink:
Not sure whether this has been noted earlier, poll for local Honiton news, NUB is the name,, have we heard of it? Anyway Conservatives stand by your beds:- Lib Dem, 51.5 Con, 32 Labour 8 Green 4 Others 4.5 I hear some Con canvassers have been telling Labour voters to vote Labour, another sign of huge concern! If this poll is close to the mark the Cons will do will to get into the forties. Still as Asquith said "Lets wait and see"
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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
The question that needs asking is why we are having Channel crossings now when we didn't 5 years ago.
What has changed? Answer that and we might have some idea of what a possible solution might be.
Not sure whether this has been noted earlier, poll for local Honiton news, NUB is the name,, have we heard of it? Anyway Conservatives stand by your beds:- Lib Dem, 51.5 Con, 32 Labour 8 Green 4 Others 4.5 I hear some Con canvassers have been telling Labour voters to vote Labour, another sign of huge concern! If this poll is close to the mark the Cons will do will to get into the forties. Still as Asquith said "Lets wait and see"
A real poll, or a vodoo poll? "Nub News" is a series of local news websites, but I know little about their origin/reliability.
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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
The question that needs asking is why we are having Channel crossings now when we didn't 5 years ago.
What has changed? Answer that and we might have some idea of what a possible solution might be.
I think introducing obligatory transponders on small vessels, linked with the vessel licence, and fines for infractions and vessel confiscations for use of the boat without turning them on, would be another way forward.
The French and Belgian border police could self-finance increased surveillance by regularly sweeping all the small and medium sized boats while they're moored or at berth.
Then we scan the Channel traffic and intercept any small boats without transponders turned on.
Combined with targeted measures to confiscate the financial assets of the people smuggling gangs. They are making large amounts of money and the police have established methods of following and confiscating drug money.
You have to think that there is a reason why we're not discouraging the cross-border flow.
Plus demand suppression measures such as introducing population registration, ID cards and contributory (Bismarckian) benefits would also reduce the relative attractiveness of the UK.
There's a lot that can be done. Instead we have this Rwandan pantomime.
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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
No proof that your immoral and absurdly expensive scheme works at all.
Next.
It worked and is still working, in Australia, which has precisely our problem. Maritime crossings
NEXT
Not that hoary old rotten chestnut again. I can't be bothered to rehash all the arguments about why we're not Australia, and why their policy isn't as effective as you claim.
I'll just note that my idea would cost literally nothing to attempt, and disproves the assertion of the Patel tendency (of which you appear to be a member) that those opposed to their immoral idea have no alternative to present. That you are unconvinced is hardly the point.
Not sure whether this has been noted earlier, poll for local Honiton news, NUB is the name,, have we heard of it? Anyway Conservatives stand by your beds:- Lib Dem, 51.5 Con, 32 Labour 8 Green 4 Others 4.5 I hear some Con canvassers have been telling Labour voters to vote Labour, another sign of huge concern! If this poll is close to the mark the Cons will do will to get into the forties. Still as Asquith said "Lets wait and see"
A real poll, or a vodoo poll? "Nub News" is a series of local news websites, but I know little about their origin/reliability.
28% swing. Bit more than Chesham, bit less than Shropshire, in line with Newbury '93. But is it a weighted poll?
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.
There was at least one summer of Panini Stickers for County Cricket - might have been a one off. Shiny silver county badges. First time I'd seen the ashes trophy and had no concept of the scale...
Edit - apparently 1983
The ashes trophy is bigger than the European Cup - until you actually see it.
That was my impression too...
OK, then pb, best sporting trophies?
I always hesitate to give football any credit, but the best sporting trophy for my eyes is the FA Cup. It is perfect. It is the archetype from which all other trophies differ in some slightly disappointing way. Also give an honourable mention to the Football World Cup, which manages to be quite different to most trophies and yet not awful. ] The European Cup is just too big. What happens when size is mistaken for quality.
The Ashes is well worth celebrating and its tininess is charming, but really, it's a bit silly isn't it?
I rather like the Claret Jug at the Open. I like how specific it is in its purpose.
I also rather like that massive plate thing they have at Wimbledon.
I feel I ought to like the Snooker World Championship Trophy, but can't actually bring it to mind. So it can't be that good.
So I'm going to go for: #1 FA Cup #2 Claret Jug
Many other fine trophies, but no others really come close to those two.
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 about the channel crossings.
Deal with the French. We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais. For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
And.,.. how do you stop the Channel crossings?
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
You seem to forget that - before Covid - Channel Crossing barely existed at all.
You’re delusional. This is nothing to do with covid, or, if it is associated it is mostly accidental
True story: I remember watching a programme about Channel crossing BY LORRY several years ago (long before Covid). Back then I suddenly thought, Fuck, why don’t they just come by boat? What’s stopping them? It will be much easer and we can’t turn them back because they might drown
It was an epiphany, and it turned out I was right. Once you realise a boat is the best way, there is no going back. As it were. Think of it as like the Wheeled Luggage of Illicit Migration to Britain. Once we all realised wheeled luggage made way more sense, that is what we did, about 30 years after it was invented
BTW we need to put a time frame around our bet
You said “a year” and a 50% drop so I suggest this, as we are near the solstice:
@rcs1000 bets @leon that migrations to the UK by boat, in toto, will be at least 50% down in the period 21 June 2022 to 21 June 2023, from where they were in the period 21 June 2021 to 21 June 2022
The loser will pay £50 to a refugee charity chosen by the winner
@edmundintokyo, as per, can be the traditional arbiter of disputes
Agreed?
Perhaps a better question might be - how to stop cross-Mediterranean immigration? "Illegal immigration" into the UK is likely to be a function of flows into Spain, Italy, Greece and Turkey. And those numbers are already in the hundreds of thousands per year - and are rising.
Patel's measures might successfully lower the proportion of illegal immigrants into Europe who continue on to the UK.
But the rising tide is likely to mean overall numbers continue to rise...
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)."
The two are not necessarily inconsistent. You're comparing 2021 acceptances (which will refer to people who mostly applied in 2016-2020) to the number of people applying in 2021. And the number of applications per year has varied between close to 100k in the early 2000s to as low as 15k.
That said, your point is in general correct.
If look at acceptances vs refusals, and in most years (2021 was an exception), the ratio is about 65 refusals against 35 acceptances.
See:
The biggest problem with the asylum system in the UK, it would seem, is that we have absolutely ridiculous processing times. The time between an asylum seeker coming to the UK, having their application rejected, and then being deported is in the years - during which period there is a high likelihood the asylum seeker will be lost.
Putting my economist hat on for a second, but if you're a valid asylum seeker, wouldn't you want a super quick processing time? And if you are an economic migrant posing as an asylum seeker, wouldn't you want to go to a country which will take years?
Wouldn't properly funding our asylum services perhaps be a sensible cost saving measure?
There is another problem with the refugee issue and that is - to paraphrase Eisenhower - we have a Refugee-Industrial complex of charities, lawyers, influential types (plus criminals in the background) that has a lot of voice and influence, and a disproportionate impact on how we deal with things.
I agree with both yours and @Cyclefree suggestions but, even if a party did propose them, the same crowds criticising Rwanda today would be talking about how any such proposals harmed the refugees and were ‘cruel’. I’m sure mental health would crop up a lot more frequently.
The absurdity of the debate is shown by the fact these people flee France to come to the U.K., claiming it’s the only safe haven. it’s a scam, a pisstake, whatever you want to call it.
Scrap the existing laws, remake the legislation and withdraw from the Convention. And start afresh.
I agree with you, and others, that the Refugee Convention needs to be rewritten for the 21st Century.
But the Netherlands is not a country of revolutionary right wingers. That they manage to process 98% of Syrian refugees inside 10 weeks shows it can be done in a lefty-liberal democracy.
And while it costs more money initially, I'm sure it saves money in the long-term, because you don't have people sitting around for years while their applications are processed.
My only actual experience in a court was on jury service. A standard theft case, nothing exciting, but the main thing I remember is getting to Friday around 1pm, and about an hour left on the case and the judge says it is time to adjourn for lunch, and as we "all have homes in the country to get to for the weekend shall resume on Monday morning".
Attitudes like that need to be gone at the same time as the govt increases funding for the judiciary, and also streamlines the law in a manner that is consistent with any treaties we have already signed up to.
Instead we underfund the judiciary and the government make the law more complex by adding in more laws each year that are often in conflict with existing law and treaty obligations. Why? So they can sound tough to the Mail and Express. And sadly that works out pretty well for the politicians careers, probably better than actually improving the situation would.
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.
No it doesn't. Not if you look at this actual situation on its merits. You're failing to credit the Scots with any maturity or intelligence. They won't keep voting for Sindy Refs and rejecting Sindy. Makes no sense. Would we have kept electing governments to give us a Brexit Ref whilst every time voting Remain? Course not. These Refs are big divisive events. We'd have tired of it. A party running on a platform of yet another one wouldn't win power. This is obvious. No way it wouldn't apply in Scotland. You need a really dim view of the Scots to think otherwise. Maybe there's our answer as to why some people DO think otherwise?
Comments
Robin Hood Airport? my farting arse !
However, I hear a lot from the other side on safe and legal routes - which would naturally increase the draw - but very little on controls/limits.
(*Ie, that the more a regional flag looks like a plausible flag of an independent country, the closer that region is to independence)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_flags
The ONLY flag in this list that looks remotely UNHQ-flyable, is the Quebec flag. Et voila
The two are not necessarily inconsistent. You're comparing 2021 acceptances (which will refer to people who mostly applied in 2016-2020) to the number of people applying in 2021. And the number of applications per year has varied between close to 100k in the early 2000s to as low as 15k.
That said, your point is in general correct.
If look at acceptances vs refusals, and in most years (2021 was an exception), the ratio is about 65 refusals against 35 acceptances.
See:
Anne Applebaum
@anneapplebaum
Navalny has disappeared
To be clear: His lawyer went to see him at his penal colony, and was told there was "no such convict". No information was given about where he might be now.
https://britishcountyflags.com/2013/08/17/isle-of-wight-flag/
Edit - apparently 1983
If Starmer picked it up he might draw a lot of Tory swing voters away, but I doubt he can dance as it's Nixon goes to China stuff.
Norfolk.
Nor folk.
Nor damn freaking folk.
The greatest county on Earth.
Thankfully therefore it omits things like the Wirral which has a logo rather than a flag, which for many years adorned Tranmere Rovers shirts.
Edit - idem Gloucestershire and Northumberland
Printer head/nozzle checks
*getting overexcited in Armenia*
@Cookie’s First Law of Regional Flags also applies in France!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_regions_of_France
Most plausible regional flag as actual national flag?
Corsica
then
Bretagne
Then
“Occitanie”
I rest Cookie’s case, m’Lud
Save Cornwall, the simple cross ones are insipid (Gloucs, Devon, Dorset).
Lincs is very ugly. Northants also.
Hampshire looks ungainly.
From a pure design perspective, Staffs and Northumberland look best.
We agree to take 2000 refugees from France each month - but from a centre inland, not from Calais.
For every migrant who arrive in the UK by boat, we reduce that total by 2.
Totals to be reset each year.
Alabama
then Alaska
then Texas
In the Netherlands, 98% of people from North Africa and the Middle East are processed inside 10 weeks.
Putting my economist hat on for a second, but if you're a valid asylum seeker, wouldn't you want a super quick processing time? And if you are an economic migrant posing as an asylum seeker, wouldn't you want to go to a country which will take years?
Wouldn't properly funding our asylum services perhaps be a sensible cost saving measure?
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well
Norfolk is the alpha and omega of counties. Fact!
There is a hundred miles of coastline, or more. A near infinity of beaches and coves. It is impossible to police all that 24/7/365. I believe the French when they say they literally cannot do it. Tho they could certainly do MORE
The only way is to deter, make it not worth the crossing. Rwanda
Next
They have a skilled workforce, high productivity, a modest wealth tax, good infrastructure (including an excellent rail service), and a high degree of local devolution across four sprechenraums.
OK the food is bland and overpriced, and the cities rather forgettable, but we don’t need to take everything.
Anyway I have just received some good news so am off to do a happy dance in the garden.
The more efficient your processing, the less you are a magnet to economic migrants posing as asylum seekers.
* That's just the wait for your first hearing. Totally bonkers.
Next.
They’ve literally just stuck a few initials in a corner, in a phenomenally ugly way. Beat that, PB!
NEXT
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/303962763420
Wish I'd kept my sticker albums.
I agree with both yours and @Cyclefree suggestions but, even if a party did propose them, the same crowds criticising Rwanda today would be talking about how any such proposals harmed the refugees and were ‘cruel’. I’m sure mental health would crop up a lot more frequently.
The absurdity of the debate is shown by the fact these people flee France to come to the U.K., claiming it’s the only safe haven. it’s a scam, a pisstake, whatever you want to call it.
Scrap the existing laws, remake the legislation and withdraw from the Convention. And start afresh.
Off topic. Sterling’s really in the shitter. $1.203. This is a problem for inflation. Time for a decent interest rate rise to show the markets we’re serious. ^1.5%, please, BoE.
I have a relative who used to be in a choir guest-conducted on occasion by TH, and she hated it.
The Rwanda policy will only potentially dissuade genuine people from claiming asylum. It will have zero net effect on Channel crossings.
But the Netherlands is not a country of revolutionary right wingers. That they manage to process 98% of Syrian refugees inside 10 weeks shows it can be done in a lefty-liberal democracy.
And while it costs more money initially, I'm sure it saves money in the long-term, because you don't have people sitting around for years while their applications are processed.
True story: I remember watching a programme about Channel crossing BY LORRY several years ago (long before Covid). Back then I suddenly thought, Fuck, why don’t they just come by boat? What’s stopping them? It will be much easer and we can’t turn them back because they might drown
It was an epiphany, and it turned out I was right. Once you realise a boat is the best way, there is no going back. As it were. Think of it as like the Wheeled Luggage of Illicit Migration to Britain. Once we all realised wheeled luggage made way more sense, that is what we did, about 30 years after it was invented
BTW we need to put a time frame around our bet
You said “a year” and a 50% drop so I suggest this, as we are near the solstice:
@rcs1000 bets @leon that migrations to the UK by boat, in toto, will be at least 50% down in the period 21 June 2022 to 21 June 2023, from where they were in the period 21 June 2021 to 21 June 2022
@leon disagrees!
The loser will pay £50 to a refugee charity chosen by the winner
@edmundintokyo, as per, can be the traditional arbiter of disputes
Agreed?
What has changed? Answer that and we might have some idea of what a possible solution might be.
If, on the other hand, you manage to sneak into the UK without getting caught. Then later, no matter how bad your English, if you claim to be a British citizen, then it's very difficult for the police to do anything about you.
And that wasn't the nub of your original argument - there is no civil war in Iran, and nor has half of it been laid waste, although I have no doubt it's not a great place to be if you don't like living under a theocratic Islamist regime.
There are plenty of people from not brilliant countries who aren't being persecuted, but argue they are, together with emphasising their family connections, just so they can move to a richer country where they have a network.
I’ve yet to see a worse flag than THAT
DALLE-2 could do better in 23 seconds
Try something else? Guess so. Oh, wait, look, crossing by boat is a lot easier than we thought and no one is drowning
You are relying on the goodwill of the EU not to stick security barriers between the North and South. Your idiot Government is telling the EU, "we have you over a barrel because we don't believe you will sacrifice peace in Ireland to fulfill your rights in a trade arrangements we agreed to. We dare you to set up barriers, we hold all the cards, f*** you!"
Your view and the pirate's narrative is absolutely absurd. We signed an international treaty we had no intentions of fulfilling? That being so, the EU are Neville Chamberlain waving his declaration at Heston Aerodrome, and we are...
International treaties are only broken by scoundrels or fools.
Crypto is definitely having a reckoning
https://twitter.com/crypto/status/1536695332532363269?s=21&t=dBS88ksHaYdcGJl0aYUJRA
Not sure whether this has been noted earlier, poll for local Honiton news, NUB is the name,, have we heard of it? Anyway Conservatives stand by your beds:-
Lib Dem, 51.5
Con, 32
Labour 8
Green 4
Others 4.5
I hear some Con canvassers have been telling Labour voters to vote Labour, another sign of huge concern!
If this poll is close to the mark the Cons will do will to get into the forties.
Still as Asquith said "Lets wait and see"
Sadly, the Durham flag has been co-opted by the far right.
The French and Belgian border police could self-finance increased surveillance by regularly sweeping all the small and medium sized boats while they're moored or at berth.
Then we scan the Channel traffic and intercept any small boats without transponders turned on.
Combined with targeted measures to confiscate the financial assets of the people smuggling gangs. They are making large amounts of money and the police have established methods of following and confiscating drug money.
You have to think that there is a reason why we're not discouraging the cross-border flow.
Plus demand suppression measures such as introducing population registration, ID cards and contributory (Bismarckian) benefits would also reduce the relative attractiveness of the UK.
There's a lot that can be done. Instead we have this Rwandan pantomime.
They must think UKIP voters are really thick...
That's where I was last week. Castelbueno is worth look if you haven't already been.
I'm back buying diesel in Morrisons, Haverfordwest at £192.9 a litre. Shame!
at a 2 year low against the dollar
I can't be bothered to rehash all the arguments about why we're not Australia, and why their policy isn't as effective as you claim.
I'll just note that my idea would cost literally nothing to attempt, and disproves the assertion of the Patel tendency (of which you appear to be a member) that those opposed to their immoral idea have no alternative to present.
That you are unconvinced is hardly the point.
But is it a weighted poll?
I always hesitate to give football any credit, but the best sporting trophy for my eyes is the FA Cup. It is perfect. It is the archetype from which all other trophies differ in some slightly disappointing way.
Also give an honourable mention to the Football World Cup, which manages to be quite different to most trophies and yet not awful. ]
The European Cup is just too big. What happens when size is mistaken for quality.
The Ashes is well worth celebrating and its tininess is charming, but really, it's a bit silly isn't it?
I rather like the Claret Jug at the Open. I like how specific it is in its purpose.
I also rather like that massive plate thing they have at Wimbledon.
I feel I ought to like the Snooker World Championship Trophy, but can't actually bring it to mind. So it can't be that good.
So I'm going to go for:
#1 FA Cup
#2 Claret Jug
Many other fine trophies, but no others really come close to those two.
Patel's measures might successfully lower the proportion of illegal immigrants into Europe who continue on to the UK.
But the rising tide is likely to mean overall numbers continue to rise...
Attitudes like that need to be gone at the same time as the govt increases funding for the judiciary, and also streamlines the law in a manner that is consistent with any treaties we have already signed up to.
Instead we underfund the judiciary and the government make the law more complex by adding in more laws each year that are often in conflict with existing law and treaty obligations. Why? So they can sound tough to the Mail and Express. And sadly that works out pretty well for the politicians careers, probably better than actually improving the situation would.