In 1951 the UN appointed a Style committee to refine the draft Convention on Refugees. The UK were on that committee and played a prominent role. The Convention itself, which came into force in 1954, contains amongst its preliminaries the following:
"The Conference, considering that many persons still leave their country of origin for reasons of persecution and are entitled to special protection on account of their position, recommends that Governments continue to receive refugees in their territories and that they act in concert in a true spirit of international cooperation in order that these refugees may find asylum and the possibility of resettlement."
We have repeatedly affirmed our commitment to the Convention, along with most other states.
Article 8 provides: With regard to exceptional measures which may be taken against the person, property or interests of nationals of a foreign State, the Contracting States shall not apply such measures to a refugee who is formally a national of the said State solely on account of such nationality. Contracting States which, under their legislation, are prevented from applying the general principle expressed in this article, shall, in appropriate cases, grant exemptions in favour of such refugees.
Article 16(1) provides: A refugee shall have free access to the courts of law on the territory of all Contracting States
Article 25(1) provides: 1. When the exercise of a right by a refugee would normally require the assistance of authorities of a foreign country to whom he cannot have recourse, the Contracting States in whose territory he is residing shall arrange that such assistance be afforded to him by their own authorities or by an international authority.
Article30 provides: 1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order. 2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority. 3. The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary.
The suggestion by the Inhouse lawyers that there is a better than 50% chance of the current bill being in breach of international law sounds like the kind of odds on bet that we would all like to take. The government really should be offering odds.
I remember Matthew Parris in the Times pointing out that the post war conventions on asylum and refugees were becoming unsustainable in a world of global travel. That was about 20 years ago
.................They have to hope and pray nobody else can be bought off ahead of them - as with the DUP in 2017...........................
Is local government not an important area of influence and power?
It really isn't. 60-70% of their spend is on social care and much of the rest of what they can do is tightly constrained by national rules. Outside a few extreme cases that make the news it matters little which party is running a council, which is why you'll find a parties supporting or opposing something in one council area and making the opposite arguments in the next one over, depending who currently has control.
There's much worthy work done in the small details, tremendous effort from councillors and officers, but influence and power for a political agenda? Not really.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
Concrete you say......would take a lot of it....
Depends what you use it for. Concrete overcoats for the gang masters?
I was thinking filling in the channel. Big picture. Shame Boris is no longer PM or I could have found an old Etonian chum of his to do a £50m publicly funded feasability study.
That might stop the boats, but wouldn't people just walk across instead? Which isn't likely to be a problem atm unless Jesus suddenly decides to take a hand.
You asked me to stop the boats with concrete? Not stop people crossing.
My other suggestion yesterday was if we all start speaking Welsh it will reduce the numbers who want to cross.....
Although you'd all have to become Welsh rugby fans, so @Tse would suddenly want to cross the other way...
Arent they quite good at rugby? Should have thought of this when Bale when was in his prime though.
In 2024 they'll pick up some blue wall seats and potentially some SNP seats if Humza Yousaf proves to be as useless as expected or if the MSP for Gilead wins.
By 2029 they should pick up some Labour seats.
Yes, I think that a realistic plan, and Davey is one for realism.
Despite being ignored by the media and political establishment 1 in 12 Britons or more plan to vote LD at the GE, and possibly twice that at the Local Elections.
We are the third party already in terms of national popular vote, just penalised nationally by the current electoral system.
As to what we stand for, those with open minds might want to follow the LD Spring Conference the weekend after next, having lost our autumn conference to the Royal mourning.
Voters: "I have no idea what the LibDems stand for" LibDem: "Follow the LD Spring Conference"
Can't you give us a little bit of a spoiler?
ISTR last time it was Bollocks to Brexit and toilets for transsexuals.
During covid, they were actually pretty principled about attempting to maintain at least some of the principles of individual freedom against the power of the state. But their hearts didn't appear to be in it and they didn't find it as much fun as the culture war stuff.
.................They have to hope and pray nobody else can be bought off ahead of them - as with the DUP in 2017...........................
A bit of re-writing of history there, Mr Mark, as you Tories always do.
The Lib Dems were not there waiting to be "bought off", as you put it, after their damaging experience of being in coalition with the Tories. Having been stabbed in the back by their so-called coalition partners, they made it quite clear that they would steer clear of the treacherous bastards (as their own Conservative Leader John Major used to call them). The only group that the Tories could look to for support was the DUP, their last resort - and as OGH has frequently pointed out - now there is nobody left willing to play ball with the Tories. Deservedly.
Mr Dixon sneers at the Lib Dems - as again is his custom - but he does so from his bolt-hole in deepest Scandinavia. His only source of information is what he picks up from the media - which is even less reliable as a source than Mr Mark's biased outpourings.
Is local government not an important area of influence and power?
It is but the Liberal Democrats main influence in local government in my experience is to be as NIMBY as possible in opposition to whatever development the local Tory Council in the Shires or Labour Council in the City has proposed in its Local Plan and then if they take control find they have to do something not too similar anyway!
In 1951 the UN appointed a Style committee to refine the draft Convention on Refugees. The UK were on that committee and played a prominent role. The Convention itself, which came into force in 1954, contains amongst its preliminaries the following:
"The Conference, considering that many persons still leave their country of origin for reasons of persecution and are entitled to special protection on account of their position, recommends that Governments continue to receive refugees in their territories and that they act in concert in a true spirit of international cooperation in order that these refugees may find asylum and the possibility of resettlement."
We have repeatedly affirmed our commitment to the Convention, along with most other states.
Article 8 provides: With regard to exceptional measures which may be taken against the person, property or interests of nationals of a foreign State, the Contracting States shall not apply such measures to a refugee who is formally a national of the said State solely on account of such nationality. Contracting States which, under their legislation, are prevented from applying the general principle expressed in this article, shall, in appropriate cases, grant exemptions in favour of such refugees.
Article 16(1) provides: A refugee shall have free access to the courts of law on the territory of all Contracting States
Article 25(1) provides: 1. When the exercise of a right by a refugee would normally require the assistance of authorities of a foreign country to whom he cannot have recourse, the Contracting States in whose territory he is residing shall arrange that such assistance be afforded to him by their own authorities or by an international authority.
Article30 provides: 1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order. 2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority. 3. The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary.
The suggestion by the Inhouse lawyers that there is a better than 50% chance of the current bill being in breach of international law sounds like the kind of odds on bet that we would all like to take. The government really should be offering odds.
Shame they sold off the Tote or we could have a pool on it and let the hand wringers win some cash off the Mail reading patriots.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
Stopping the boats, if that's your main aim, is pretty simple. A UK asylum centre in Calais and ferry tickets to Dover.
Stopping boats without letting people in another way? Can't help you there.
Is it that simple? Will the Albanians simply give up when rejected at Calais?
Quite possibly. But it reduces the numbers of boat people, which makes it easier to catch and return those who remain.
Part of our problem at the moment is that the rate of people coming in vastly exceeds our state ability to process them.
So the UK is reduced to bloodcurdling threats that it probably can't carry out. Partly human rights law, but partly because the UK state can't reliably carry out anything. Trust me- that tends not to work.
A little way into The Clerk's Tale, I think (so far) that the tales in verse might be the best ones. I liked the Man of Law's Tale a lot too (in which Constance is bloody unlucky).
The fact is people have consistently voted for governments to "do something" about the boat people.
Nick Robinson playing the "your father" card on Suella right now on R4.
I wish people wouldn't try that line. It comes down to saying people are supposed to support or oppose specific things because of their family or racial heritage.
Its also not necessary in order to critique a policy.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
Concrete you say......would take a lot of it....
Depends what you use it for. Concrete overcoats for the gang masters?
I was thinking filling in the channel. Big picture. Shame Boris is no longer PM or I could have found an old Etonian chum of his to do a £50m publicly funded feasability study.
That might stop the boats, but wouldn't people just walk across instead? Which isn't likely to be a problem atm unless Jesus suddenly decides to take a hand.
You asked me to stop the boats with concrete? Not stop people crossing.
My other suggestion yesterday was if we all start speaking Welsh it will reduce the numbers who want to cross.....
Germany has the German language as a hostile environment, but has a lot more asylum seekers and refugees than the UK.
Never mind small boats, 30 years of Tory Dangerous Dogs Acts aren't working either.
I have often wondered why some breeds don't require a licence to keep them.
I mean, cocker spaniels or labradors are not aggressive and are not usually dangerous, but bulldogs, bull terriers, Alsatians, Rottweilers, akitas all can be very aggressive if not properly trained and controlled.
So can terriers be, but they're usually easier to deal with on account of being quite small.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
Concrete you say......would take a lot of it....
Depends what you use it for. Concrete overcoats for the gang masters?
I was thinking filling in the channel. Big picture. Shame Boris is no longer PM or I could have found an old Etonian chum of his to do a £50m publicly funded feasability study.
That might stop the boats, but wouldn't people just walk across instead? Which isn't likely to be a problem atm unless Jesus suddenly decides to take a hand.
You asked me to stop the boats with concrete? Not stop people crossing.
My other suggestion yesterday was if we all start speaking Welsh it will reduce the numbers who want to cross.....
Germany has the German language as a hostile environment, but has a lot more asylum seekers and refugees than the UK.
German is easier to learn than Welsh. It has logical rules on grammar and no random mutations.
Mr. kamski, Germans also tend to speak fantastic English, even using it for business meetings when everyone there is German.
As an aside, I occasionally watch Twitch streams in German just to try and remind myself of it, and little bits and pieces of English do creep in even in 'German' vocabulary.
Sorry off topic but just to respond to @hyufd after I left the thread last night:
You say Grammar schools give parents more choice. They don't. If your child fails the 11 plus they get less choice.
On the 'leftie' nonsense you haven't responded to the fact that I am not a 'leftie' and that successive Conservative governments have done nothing to remove comprehensives and that Tory controlled councils like Surrey implemented and supported them. When I identified David Johnston as a Tory MP who writes against Grammars you call him a leftie. I mean one of your own MPs. You also referred to him as a Heathite. Was Heath's government leftie then? What about Thatcher's government who didn't undo comprehensives? Or Surrey Country Council? All lefties?
Are everyone lefties other than yourself? This is very confusing if most Tories are lefties, especially as many of your own views are indistinguishable from far left authoritarianism.
If you are a working class parent though the evidence Bristol University foundation however was that your child would get better GCSE results than at the local comprehensive.
Heath's government did nothing to stop local authorities turning grammars into comprehensives which had begun when Wilson's government pushed to end selective education(the trend only slowed when Thatcher was PM and slightly reversed with more pupils attending grammars when Major was PM). Hence most of the few remaining areas with grammars are in Tory controlled councils.
You can't even ballot to open new grammars now, only ballot to close them. True parental choice would at least allow that
In 1951 the UN appointed a Style committee to refine the draft Convention on Refugees. The UK were on that committee and played a prominent role. The Convention itself, which came into force in 1954, contains amongst its preliminaries the following:
"The Conference, considering that many persons still leave their country of origin for reasons of persecution and are entitled to special protection on account of their position, recommends that Governments continue to receive refugees in their territories and that they act in concert in a true spirit of international cooperation in order that these refugees may find asylum and the possibility of resettlement."
We have repeatedly affirmed our commitment to the Convention, along with most other states.
Article 8 provides: With regard to exceptional measures which may be taken against the person, property or interests of nationals of a foreign State, the Contracting States shall not apply such measures to a refugee who is formally a national of the said State solely on account of such nationality. Contracting States which, under their legislation, are prevented from applying the general principle expressed in this article, shall, in appropriate cases, grant exemptions in favour of such refugees.
Article 16(1) provides: A refugee shall have free access to the courts of law on the territory of all Contracting States
Article 25(1) provides: 1. When the exercise of a right by a refugee would normally require the assistance of authorities of a foreign country to whom he cannot have recourse, the Contracting States in whose territory he is residing shall arrange that such assistance be afforded to him by their own authorities or by an international authority.
Article30 provides: 1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order. 2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority. 3. The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary.
The suggestion by the Inhouse lawyers that there is a better than 50% chance of the current bill being in breach of international law sounds like the kind of odds on bet that we would all like to take. The government really should be offering odds.
I remember Matthew Parris in the Times pointing out that the post war conventions on asylum and refugees were becoming unsustainable in a world of global travel. That was about 20 years ago
A prescient fellow
This is the baffling thing to me. Why are right wing "patriots" not angry with this policy for not leaving the convention? Do they believe UK courts will uphold the new law?
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
Never say it can't be done. The Royal Australian Navy did it.
Do they have some ships we could borrow?
RAN did it with Cape class OPVs (new ones now being commissioned as ADV rather than HMAS, republic watchers) so the UK could do with River class. Of which the RN has an abundance because the government had to keep buying them as BAE had threatened to close the shipyard at Govan.
You're saying the Rivers could stop the flow?
More likerivulets. And partly diverted ones. Wiki:
'The River class is a class of offshore patrol vessels built primarily for the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom. A total of nine were built for the Royal Navy (RN), four Batch 1 and five Batch 2. One Batch 1 (HMS Clyde), which was the Falklands guard ship, was decommissioned and transferred at the end of its lease to the Royal Bahrain Naval Force.
The three remaining Batch 1 ships perform fisheries security and border patrol tasks in UK waters. The five new Batch 2 ships provide overseas forward presence, performing maritime security duties and disaster relief operations, often supported by a Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel.'
https://www.forces.net/services/navy/meet-royal-navys-fishery-protection-squadron emphasises they have lots of jobs to do, including fisheries protection. They'll sure be busy in the Dover Straits. But what about all that Brexitish fish? Just as well the Scottish Government has paid for its own fisheries protection patrol boats.
Beautiful snow covered fields here in Essex this morning. I am sure you are having a nice sunshine break but I like winter to be winter
It’s March 8
Oh good, can we start on the dates of the seasons again! I stick to the calandar months generally, so we are in spring, but the weather experiences significant thermal lag, and we’ve just had a SSW.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
Never say it can't be done. The Royal Australian Navy did it.
Do they have some ships we could borrow?
RAN did it with Cape class OPVs (new ones now being commissioned as ADV rather than HMAS, republic watchers) so the UK could do with River class. Of which the RN has an abundance because the government had to keep buying them as BAE had threatened to close the shipyard at Govan.
In 2024 they'll pick up some blue wall seats and potentially some SNP seats if Humza Yousaf proves to be as useless as expected or if the MSP for Gilead wins.
By 2029 they should pick up some Labour seats.
Yes, I think that a realistic plan, and Davey is one for realism.
Despite being ignored by the media and political establishment 1 in 12 Britons or more plan to vote LD at the GE, and possibly twice that at the Local Elections.
We are the third party already in terms of national popular vote, just penalised nationally by the current electoral system.
As to what we stand for, those with open minds might want to follow the LD Spring Conference the weekend after next, having lost our autumn conference to the Royal mourning.
Voters: "I have no idea what the LibDems stand for" LibDem: "Follow the LD Spring Conference"
Can't you give us a little bit of a spoiler?
ISTR last time it was Bollocks to Brexit and toilets for transsexuals.
During covid, they were actually pretty principled about attempting to maintain at least some of the principles of individual freedom against the power of the state. But their hearts didn't appear to be in it and they didn't find it as much fun as the culture war stuff.
I suspect at next election the main (/only) appeal will be "the LibDem candidate has the best chance of defeating your Tory MP". Which may or may not make them the 3rd party again.
Mr. kamski, Germans also tend to speak fantastic English, even using it for business meetings when everyone there is German.
As an aside, I occasionally watch Twitch streams in German just to try and remind myself of it, and little bits and pieces of English do creep in even in 'German' vocabulary.
A German speaking colleague complained of this. He gave the example that Germans will use the expression 'denken'outside the box'.'
Why they would ever use that most horrible of management cliches I have no idea. In any case, 'aus den kisten' would be far more poetic.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
Concrete you say......would take a lot of it....
Depends what you use it for. Concrete overcoats for the gang masters?
I was thinking filling in the channel. Big picture. Shame Boris is no longer PM or I could have found an old Etonian chum of his to do a £50m publicly funded feasability study.
That might stop the boats, but wouldn't people just walk across instead? Which isn't likely to be a problem atm unless Jesus suddenly decides to take a hand.
You asked me to stop the boats with concrete? Not stop people crossing.
My other suggestion yesterday was if we all start speaking Welsh it will reduce the numbers who want to cross.....
Germany has the German language as a hostile environment, but has a lot more asylum seekers and refugees than the UK.
I quite like German as a foreign language, feels far more logical than most. And some lovelyputgothersuperlongwordstoo that you can't do in most languages.
In 1951 the UN appointed a Style committee to refine the draft Convention on Refugees. The UK were on that committee and played a prominent role. The Convention itself, which came into force in 1954, contains amongst its preliminaries the following:
"The Conference, considering that many persons still leave their country of origin for reasons of persecution and are entitled to special protection on account of their position, recommends that Governments continue to receive refugees in their territories and that they act in concert in a true spirit of international cooperation in order that these refugees may find asylum and the possibility of resettlement."
We have repeatedly affirmed our commitment to the Convention, along with most other states.
Article 8 provides: With regard to exceptional measures which may be taken against the person, property or interests of nationals of a foreign State, the Contracting States shall not apply such measures to a refugee who is formally a national of the said State solely on account of such nationality. Contracting States which, under their legislation, are prevented from applying the general principle expressed in this article, shall, in appropriate cases, grant exemptions in favour of such refugees.
Article 16(1) provides: A refugee shall have free access to the courts of law on the territory of all Contracting States
Article 25(1) provides: 1. When the exercise of a right by a refugee would normally require the assistance of authorities of a foreign country to whom he cannot have recourse, the Contracting States in whose territory he is residing shall arrange that such assistance be afforded to him by their own authorities or by an international authority.
Article30 provides: 1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order. 2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority. 3. The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary.
The suggestion by the Inhouse lawyers that there is a better than 50% chance of the current bill being in breach of international law sounds like the kind of odds on bet that we would all like to take. The government really should be offering odds.
I remember Matthew Parris in the Times pointing out that the post war conventions on asylum and refugees were becoming unsustainable in a world of global travel. That was about 20 years ago
A prescient fellow
I have said the same on here more recently. But there are ways of addressing such issues and childish, spiteful, incoherent legislation without addressing the mutual interests of all contracting parties to the Convention is really not the way to do it. The clarity, simplicity and generality of the Convention's language is genuinely impressive. It was modified once, removing the restriction of rights to victims of WW2 and making them universal. Otherwise, as a set of principles, it is a remarkable document.
(* except for viewers in Farageland, where it’s Happy Englandshire Wives, Handmaids, Marthas, Econowives and Aunts Day!)
This means that it’s also Why Isn’t There An International Men’s Day Day which coincidentally falls on the same date as There Is One You Stupid, Self pitying **** Day.
It’s easy to sneer at that type of response but I would argue the media make much more of the International Womens Day, than the Mens version.
In 1951 the UN appointed a Style committee to refine the draft Convention on Refugees. The UK were on that committee and played a prominent role. The Convention itself, which came into force in 1954, contains amongst its preliminaries the following:
"The Conference, considering that many persons still leave their country of origin for reasons of persecution and are entitled to special protection on account of their position, recommends that Governments continue to receive refugees in their territories and that they act in concert in a true spirit of international cooperation in order that these refugees may find asylum and the possibility of resettlement."
We have repeatedly affirmed our commitment to the Convention, along with most other states.
Article 8 provides: With regard to exceptional measures which may be taken against the person, property or interests of nationals of a foreign State, the Contracting States shall not apply such measures to a refugee who is formally a national of the said State solely on account of such nationality. Contracting States which, under their legislation, are prevented from applying the general principle expressed in this article, shall, in appropriate cases, grant exemptions in favour of such refugees.
Article 16(1) provides: A refugee shall have free access to the courts of law on the territory of all Contracting States
Article 25(1) provides: 1. When the exercise of a right by a refugee would normally require the assistance of authorities of a foreign country to whom he cannot have recourse, the Contracting States in whose territory he is residing shall arrange that such assistance be afforded to him by their own authorities or by an international authority.
Article30 provides: 1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order. 2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority. 3. The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary.
The suggestion by the Inhouse lawyers that there is a better than 50% chance of the current bill being in breach of international law sounds like the kind of odds on bet that we would all like to take. The government really should be offering odds.
I remember Matthew Parris in the Times pointing out that the post war conventions on asylum and refugees were becoming unsustainable in a world of global travel. That was about 20 years ago
(* except for viewers in Farageland, where it’s Happy Englandshire Wives, Handmaids, Marthas, Econowives and Aunts Day!)
This means that it’s also Why Isn’t There An International Men’s Day Day which coincidentally falls on the same date as There Is One You Stupid, Self pitying **** Day.
It’s easy to sneer at that type of response but I would argue the media make much more of the International Womens Day, than the Mens version.
And right on cue, up pops a Stupid, Self pitying ****
(* except for viewers in Farageland, where it’s Happy Englandshire Wives, Handmaids, Marthas, Econowives and Aunts Day!)
This means that it’s also Why Isn’t There An International Men’s Day Day which coincidentally falls on the same date as There Is One You Stupid, Self pitying **** Day.
It’s easy to sneer at that type of response but I would argue the media make much more of the International Womens Day, than the Mens version.
Well, it is diluted by having 364 days for men.
We can give them an extra 1 on leap years to balance it out?
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
I don't think you can stop them but I am pretty sure you can mitigate their effects and reduce their numbers, but that requires serious thinking, compromises and a lot more spending. It seems that the vast majority of the traffickers are situated on this side of the Channel, for example. That indicates that enforcement authorities could be doing a lot more than they are to tackle them - are they failing through lack of resources, planning, coordination, etc? Is anyone in government asking? And, as we know, the time it takes to process asylum claims is ridiculous. Tat is down to the Home Office and the people who run it. Then there are the six years of distrust and antagonism that were caused by Brexit. That will not all be undone immediately - and if it is to be done meaningfully, it cannot be done while trying to appease the ERG. And so on. What won't work is saying this is not our problem, everyone else has to handle it and we will break international law to try to get our way.
Mr. kamski, Germans also tend to speak fantastic English, even using it for business meetings when everyone there is German.
As an aside, I occasionally watch Twitch streams in German just to try and remind myself of it, and little bits and pieces of English do creep in even in 'German' vocabulary.
A German speaking colleague complained of this. He gave the example that Germans will use the expression 'denken'outside the box'.'
Why they would ever use that most horrible of management cliches I have no idea. In any case, 'aus den kisten' would be far more poetic.
He blamed TV, incidentally.
I remember years ago watching Borgen and discovering apparently there's no native Danish equivalent of '15 minutes of fame'
Never mind small boats, 30 years of Tory Dangerous Dogs Acts aren't working either.
What a load of cock.
Dog ownership by people who.probably shouldn't have dogs has increased significantly since lockdown.hence the no.of attacks has increased proportionately.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
Stopping the boats, if that's your main aim, is pretty simple. A UK asylum centre in Calais and ferry tickets to Dover.
Stopping boats without letting people in another way? Can't help you there.
Is it that simple? Will the Albanians simply give up when rejected at Calais?
Quite possibly. But it reduces the numbers of boat people, which makes it easier to catch and return those who remain.
Part of our problem at the moment is that the rate of people coming in vastly exceeds our state ability to process them.
So the UK is reduced to bloodcurdling threats that it probably can't carry out. Partly human rights law, but partly because the UK state can't reliably carry out anything. Trust me- that tends not to work.
Pitiful
Making asylum easier to claim at Calais - then giving the lucky ones tickets for the Dover Ferry - will just INCREASE the pull factor of Calais
Tens of thousands more will try. What will those that fail then do? Will they think “shit, at least the UK gave me a fair go, oh well, now I’ll head back to Albania/Somalia”
Or will they simply try and cross illegally? As before, but in even greater numbers?
You don’t have an answer which doesn’t make you extremely uncomfortable. So you would rather provide no answer at all. It’s a kind of cowardice
(* except for viewers in Farageland, where it’s Happy Englandshire Wives, Handmaids, Marthas, Econowives and Aunts Day!)
This means that it’s also Why Isn’t There An International Men’s Day Day which coincidentally falls on the same date as There Is One You Stupid, Self pitying **** Day.
It’s easy to sneer at that type of response but I would argue the media make much more of the International Womens Day, than the Mens version.
And right on cue, up pops a Stupid, Self pitying ****
If that’s what you thought I meant, I’d get your comprehension checked. I was pointing out why some men say such things, not saying it myself.
Never mind small boats, 30 years of Tory Dangerous Dogs Acts aren't working either.
What a load of cock.
Dog ownership by people who.probably shouldn't have dogs has increased significantly since lockdown.hence the no.of attacks has increased proportionately.
Also issues about dogs which grew up in lockdown, so didn't get used to meeting strangers.
Mr. kamski, Germans also tend to speak fantastic English, even using it for business meetings when everyone there is German.
As an aside, I occasionally watch Twitch streams in German just to try and remind myself of it, and little bits and pieces of English do creep in even in 'German' vocabulary.
A German speaking colleague complained of this. He gave the example that Germans will use the expression 'denken'outside the box'.'
Why they would ever use that most horrible of management cliches I have no idea. In any case, 'aus den kisten' would be far more poetic.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
I don't think you can stop them but I am pretty sure you can mitigate their effects and reduce their numbers, but that requires serious thinking, compromises and a lot more spending. It seems that the vast majority of the traffickers are situated on this side of the Channel, for example. That indicates that enforcement authorities could be doing a lot more than they are to tackle them - are they failing through lack of resources, planning, coordination, etc? Is anyone in government asking? And, as we know, the time it takes to process asylum claims is ridiculous. Tat is down to the Home Office and the people who run it. Then there are the six years of distrust and antagonism that were caused by Brexit. That will not all be undone immediately - and if it is to be done meaningfully, it cannot be done while trying to appease the ERG. And so on. What won't work is saying this is not our problem, everyone else has to handle it and we will break international law to try to get our way.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
Concrete you say......would take a lot of it....
Depends what you use it for. Concrete overcoats for the gang masters?
I was thinking filling in the channel. Big picture. Shame Boris is no longer PM or I could have found an old Etonian chum of his to do a £50m publicly funded feasability study.
That might stop the boats, but wouldn't people just walk across instead? Which isn't likely to be a problem atm unless Jesus suddenly decides to take a hand.
You asked me to stop the boats with concrete? Not stop people crossing.
My other suggestion yesterday was if we all start speaking Welsh it will reduce the numbers who want to cross.....
Germany has the German language as a hostile environment, but has a lot more asylum seekers and refugees than the UK.
I quite like German as a foreign language, feels far more logical than most. And some lovelyputgothersuperlongwordstoo that you can't do in most languages.
Agglutination is very common in non Indo-European languages. All of the Turkic, Uralic, Mongolic, Austronesian and Indigenous American languages have it. And Japanese/Korean.
Never mind small boats, 30 years of Tory Dangerous Dogs Acts aren't working either.
What a load of cock.
Dog ownership by people who.probably shouldn't have dogs has increased significantly since lockdown.hence the no.of attacks has increased proportionately.
Is this true (the number of attacks)? There has been high profile incidents, but that’s not the same thing. Is there data?
(* except for viewers in Farageland, where it’s Happy Englandshire Wives, Handmaids, Marthas, Econowives and Aunts Day!)
This means that it’s also Why Isn’t There An International Men’s Day Day which coincidentally falls on the same date as There Is One You Stupid, Self pitying **** Day.
It’s easy to sneer at that type of response but I would argue the media make much more of the International Womens Day, than the Mens version.
And right on cue, up pops a Stupid, Self pitying ****
If that’s what you thought I meant, I’d get your comprehension checked. I was pointing out why some men say such things, not saying it myself.
I haven’t seen or heard any media references to IWD except an individual tweet on that island of pc, ElonMusksTwitter.
Since you’re in the know, what will you be doing to highlight International Men’s Day?
Never mind small boats, 30 years of Tory Dangerous Dogs Acts aren't working either.
What a load of cock.
Dog ownership by people who.probably shouldn't have dogs has increased significantly since lockdown.hence the no.of attacks has increased proportionately.
Also issues about dogs which grew up in lockdown, so didn't get used to meeting strangers.
I think this true for "normal" dogs, but there has definitely been an increase in dodgy breeds round me.
There is a dog that us already well documented in my area (all the FB groups) for attacking other dogs, going at children. Been reported multiple times but police can't/won't do anything. Possible American Bully type thing.
(* except for viewers in Farageland, where it’s Happy Englandshire Wives, Handmaids, Marthas, Econowives and Aunts Day!)
This means that it’s also Why Isn’t There An International Men’s Day Day which coincidentally falls on the same date as There Is One You Stupid, Self pitying **** Day.
It’s easy to sneer at that type of response but I would argue the media make much more of the International Womens Day, than the Mens version.
And right on cue, up pops a Stupid, Self pitying ****
If that’s what you thought I meant, I’d get your comprehension checked. I was pointing out why some men say such things, not saying it myself.
I haven’t seen or heard any media references to IWD except an individual tweet on that island of pc, ElonMusksTwitter.
Since you’re in the know, what will you be doing to highlight International Men’s Day?
It was the first thing on Radio 5 that I heard this morning.
Can I just say people seem to be misconstruing my post. I have no beef with international womens day.
Mr. kamski, Germans also tend to speak fantastic English, even using it for business meetings when everyone there is German.
As an aside, I occasionally watch Twitch streams in German just to try and remind myself of it, and little bits and pieces of English do creep in even in 'German' vocabulary.
A German speaking colleague complained of this. He gave the example that Germans will use the expression 'denken'outside the box'.'
Why they would ever use that most horrible of management cliches I have no idea. In any case, 'aus den kisten' would be far more poetic.
He blamed TV, incidentally.
THat'd be 'oot o the kist' in Scots!
Would be a fitting addition to the long list of Scotticisms for being drunk.
* Rishi: "I will definitely solve the illegal immigration problem before the next election" * Rishi solves the illegal immigration problem * Electorate: "Thanks so much, Rishi! Now it's over to you, Keir, to solve the cost of living crisis"
What will happen is this:
* the Tories will make immigration the main issue * after whatever solution Rishi brings to any aspect of the illegal immigration problem, the Tories will keep immigration as the main issue and they will fight Labour over some other aspect of it * the electorate will lap it up.
The choices for the UK government regarding the Dinghy People (barring some huge change in global geopolitical trends) can be boiled down to these three:
1. Violently push back the boats. Accept that many will drown. This will be morally unacceptable to 98% of the country
2. Immediately detain and deport all those who arrive. Disallow their rights. Off they go to Rwanda or whoever we can bribe - this will be palatable to much of the country but will be loathed by many liberals (and others). Also legally difficult
3. Basically accept there’s nothing we can do. Make some futile gestures like “helping French police”. Prohibit the use of the word “dinghy”. Accept that 100,000s will cross and this number will likely grow and grow. This will enrage much of the country and possibly lead to Britain’s first serious far right party
Never mind small boats, 30 years of Tory Dangerous Dogs Acts aren't working either.
What a load of cock.
Dog ownership by people who.probably shouldn't have dogs has increased significantly since lockdown.hence the no.of attacks has increased proportionately.
Is this true (the number of attacks)? There has been high profile incidents, but that’s not the same thing. Is there data?
34% strongly suggests there must have been data! Good data, bad data, well analysed I shall leave to someone else, but obviously data rather than anecdotal.
Mr. kamski, Germans also tend to speak fantastic English, even using it for business meetings when everyone there is German.
As an aside, I occasionally watch Twitch streams in German just to try and remind myself of it, and little bits and pieces of English do creep in even in 'German' vocabulary.
A German speaking colleague complained of this. He gave the example that Germans will use the expression 'denken'outside the box'.'
Why they would ever use that most horrible of management cliches I have no idea. In any case, 'aus den kisten' would be far more poetic.
He blamed TV, incidentally.
Most Germans have pretty poor English. Better than the general level in Italy, but far far worse than in Scandinavia. In the new Bundesländer the English among older people is often almost non-existent.
And no, meetings where everyone is German are conducted in German. There might be exceptions if it's a strict policy of a foreign company, or perhaps postgraduate study that is conducted in English - but usually in those situations not everyone present is German anyway.
Of course there are lots of borrowed words from English, doesn't mean that people speak English, any more than English people using words like spaghetti or cappuccino means that they can speak Italian.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
Concrete you say......would take a lot of it....
Depends what you use it for. Concrete overcoats for the gang masters?
I was thinking filling in the channel. Big picture. Shame Boris is no longer PM or I could have found an old Etonian chum of his to do a £50m publicly funded feasability study.
That might stop the boats, but wouldn't people just walk across instead? Which isn't likely to be a problem atm unless Jesus suddenly decides to take a hand.
You asked me to stop the boats with concrete? Not stop people crossing.
My other suggestion yesterday was if we all start speaking Welsh it will reduce the numbers who want to cross.....
Germany has the German language as a hostile environment, but has a lot more asylum seekers and refugees than the UK.
I quite like German as a foreign language, feels far more logical than most. And some lovelyputgothersuperlongwordstoo that you can't do in most languages.
That property of German is also a boon for those who want to make a (somewhat ridiculous) case for German, not English, being the language that has the most words.
Mr. kamski, Germans also tend to speak fantastic English, even using it for business meetings when everyone there is German.
As an aside, I occasionally watch Twitch streams in German just to try and remind myself of it, and little bits and pieces of English do creep in even in 'German' vocabulary.
A German speaking colleague complained of this. He gave the example that Germans will use the expression 'denken'outside the box'.'
Why they would ever use that most horrible of management cliches I have no idea. In any case, 'aus den kisten' would be far more poetic.
He blamed TV, incidentally.
Most Germans have pretty poor English. Better than the general level in Italy, but far far worse than in Scandinavia. In the new Bundesländer the English among older people is often almost non-existent.
And no, meetings where everyone is German are conducted in German. There might be exceptions if it's a strict policy of a foreign company, or perhaps postgraduate study that is conducted in English - but usually in those situations not everyone present is German anyway.
Of course there are lots of borrowed words from English, doesn't mean that people speak English, any more than English people using words like spaghetti or cappuccino means that they can speak Italian.
Mr. kamski, Germans also tend to speak fantastic English, even using it for business meetings when everyone there is German.
As an aside, I occasionally watch Twitch streams in German just to try and remind myself of it, and little bits and pieces of English do creep in even in 'German' vocabulary.
A German speaking colleague complained of this. He gave the example that Germans will use the expression 'denken'outside the box'.'
Why they would ever use that most horrible of management cliches I have no idea. In any case, 'aus den kisten' would be far more poetic.
He blamed TV, incidentally.
THat'd be 'oot o the kist' in Scots!
Would be a fitting addition to the long list of Scotticisms for being drunk.
‘He was oot o’ his kist!’
could that be the new way of deriding Scotch experts?
Never mind small boats, 30 years of Tory Dangerous Dogs Acts aren't working either.
What a load of cock.
Dog ownership by people who.probably shouldn't have dogs has increased significantly since lockdown.hence the no.of attacks has increased proportionately.
Is this true (the number of attacks)? There has been high profile incidents, but that’s not the same thing. Is there data?
34% strongly suggests there must have been data! Good data, bad data, well analysed I shall leave to someone else, but obviously data rather than anecdotal.
Mr. kamski, Germans also tend to speak fantastic English, even using it for business meetings when everyone there is German.
As an aside, I occasionally watch Twitch streams in German just to try and remind myself of it, and little bits and pieces of English do creep in even in 'German' vocabulary.
A German speaking colleague complained of this. He gave the example that Germans will use the expression 'denken'outside the box'.'
Why they would ever use that most horrible of management cliches I have no idea. In any case, 'aus den kisten' would be far more poetic.
He blamed TV, incidentally.
THat'd be 'oot o the kist' in Scots!
Would be a fitting addition to the long list of Scotticisms for being drunk.
‘He was oot o’ his kist!’
Slightly surpridingly it doesn't seem to be cited in DSL - though I did find quoted this bit of William Neill from Tom Hubbard The New Makars 50:
I'm tellt the auncient Celts collectit heids lik some fowk gaither stamps, an gin ye were thair guest wad shaw ye kists fu o thair latest prizes. Nou we're delivrit frae sic ugsome weys,
Mr. kamski, Germans also tend to speak fantastic English, even using it for business meetings when everyone there is German.
As an aside, I occasionally watch Twitch streams in German just to try and remind myself of it, and little bits and pieces of English do creep in even in 'German' vocabulary.
A German speaking colleague complained of this. He gave the example that Germans will use the expression 'denken'outside the box'.'
Why they would ever use that most horrible of management cliches I have no idea. In any case, 'aus den kisten' would be far more poetic.
He blamed TV, incidentally.
Most Germans have pretty poor English. Better than the general level in Italy, but far far worse than in Scandinavia. In the new Bundesländer the English among older people is often almost non-existent.
And no, meetings where everyone is German are conducted in German. There might be exceptions if it's a strict policy of a foreign company, or perhaps postgraduate study that is conducted in English - but usually in those situations not everyone present is German anyway.
Of course there are lots of borrowed words from English, doesn't mean that people speak English, any more than English people using words like spaghetti or cappuccino means that they can speak Italian.
(* except for viewers in Farageland, where it’s Happy Englandshire Wives, Handmaids, Marthas, Econowives and Aunts Day!)
This means that it’s also Why Isn’t There An International Men’s Day Day which coincidentally falls on the same date as There Is One You Stupid, Self pitying **** Day.
I thought every other day in the year was International Men's Day?
(* except for viewers in Farageland, where it’s Happy Englandshire Wives, Handmaids, Marthas, Econowives and Aunts Day!)
This means that it’s also Why Isn’t There An International Men’s Day Day which coincidentally falls on the same date as There Is One You Stupid, Self pitying **** Day.
It’s easy to sneer at that type of response but I would argue the media make much more of the International Womens Day, than the Mens version.
And right on cue, up pops a Stupid, Self pitying ****
Never mind small boats, 30 years of Tory Dangerous Dogs Acts aren't working either.
I have often wondered why some breeds don't require a licence to keep them.
Youd discriminate based on a dog's appearance? Racist.
Well, on the basis of their teeth, so I suppose that counts.
Seriously, if you arrest hounds on the basis of breed, it gets very difficult in the law courts. ISTR the Dangerous Dogs Act ran into trouble. And folk do not like having their mutts compulsorily executed.
Mr. kamski, Germans also tend to speak fantastic English, even using it for business meetings when everyone there is German.
As an aside, I occasionally watch Twitch streams in German just to try and remind myself of it, and little bits and pieces of English do creep in even in 'German' vocabulary.
A German speaking colleague complained of this. He gave the example that Germans will use the expression 'denken'outside the box'.'
Why they would ever use that most horrible of management cliches I have no idea. In any case, 'aus den kisten' would be far more poetic.
He blamed TV, incidentally.
Most Germans have pretty poor English. Better than the general level in Italy, but far far worse than in Scandinavia. In the new Bundesländer the English among older people is often almost non-existent.
And no, meetings where everyone is German are conducted in German. There might be exceptions if it's a strict policy of a foreign company, or perhaps postgraduate study that is conducted in English - but usually in those situations not everyone present is German anyway.
Of course there are lots of borrowed words from English, doesn't mean that people speak English, any more than English people using words like spaghetti or cappuccino means that they can speak Italian.
Whenever I go to Germany I am always astonished by the amount of English words used in TV adverts, on posters, in product branding, in news headlines etc
That perhaps explains the flawed impression that all Germans speak excellent English
Never mind small boats, 30 years of Tory Dangerous Dogs Acts aren't working either.
I have often wondered why some breeds don't require a licence to keep them.
Youd discriminate based on a dog's appearance? Racist.
Well, on the basis of their teeth, so I suppose that counts.
Seriously, if you arrest hounds on the basis of breed, it gets very difficult in the law courts. ISTR the Dangerous Dogs Act ran into trouble. And folk do not like having their mutts compulsorily executed.
Licensing does not mean arresting. Just means you have to be trained and aware of the right methods of control for a particular dog.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
I don't think you can stop them but I am pretty sure you can mitigate their effects and reduce their numbers, but that requires serious thinking, compromises and a lot more spending. It seems that the vast majority of the traffickers are situated on this side of the Channel, for example. That indicates that enforcement authorities could be doing a lot more than they are to tackle them - are they failing through lack of resources, planning, coordination, etc? Is anyone in government asking? And, as we know, the time it takes to process asylum claims is ridiculous. Tat is down to the Home Office and the people who run it. Then there are the six years of distrust and antagonism that were caused by Brexit. That will not all be undone immediately - and if it is to be done meaningfully, it cannot be done while trying to appease the ERG. And so on. What won't work is saying this is not our problem, everyone else has to handle it and we will break international law to try to get our way.
Another feeble non-answer. Next
I suppose it could have been worse after a few beers in the sun!
(* except for viewers in Farageland, where it’s Happy Englandshire Wives, Handmaids, Marthas, Econowives and Aunts Day!)
This means that it’s also Why Isn’t There An International Men’s Day Day which coincidentally falls on the same date as There Is One You Stupid, Self pitying **** Day.
It’s easy to sneer at that type of response but I would argue the media make much more of the International Womens Day, than the Mens version.
And right on cue, up pops a Stupid, Self pitying ****
If that’s what you thought I meant, I’d get your comprehension checked. I was pointing out why some men say such things, not saying it myself.
I haven’t seen or heard any media references to IWD except an individual tweet on that island of pc, ElonMusksTwitter.
Since you’re in the know, what will you be doing to highlight International Men’s Day?
It was the first thing on Radio 5 that I heard this morning.
Can I just say people seem to be misconstruing my post. I have no beef with international womens day.
Never mind small boats, 30 years of Tory Dangerous Dogs Acts aren't working either.
I have often wondered why some breeds don't require a licence to keep them.
Youd discriminate based on a dog's appearance? Racist.
Well, on the basis of their teeth, so I suppose that counts.
There's a case for reintroducing the dog licence. Make them easy to obtain and inexpensive or free, but once a person is convicted of a relevant offence, remove their licence and make it hard for them to get a new one - and if they're caught keeping a dog, book them.
Bugger, just as I have to head off, it starts snowing.
You think you’ve got it hard? I’ve got to move to another sun bed as my present sun bed is now in shadow. On the upside, Happy Hour has started, and delicious poolside daiquiris are now just £1.80
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
Stopping the boats, if that's your main aim, is pretty simple. A UK asylum centre in Calais and ferry tickets to Dover.
Stopping boats without letting people in another way? Can't help you there.
Is it that simple? Will the Albanians simply give up when rejected at Calais?
Quite possibly. But it reduces the numbers of boat people, which makes it easier to catch and return those who remain.
Part of our problem at the moment is that the rate of people coming in vastly exceeds our state ability to process them.
So the UK is reduced to bloodcurdling threats that it probably can't carry out. Partly human rights law, but partly because the UK state can't reliably carry out anything. Trust me- that tends not to work.
Pitiful
Making asylum easier to claim at Calais - then giving the lucky ones tickets for the Dover Ferry - will just INCREASE the pull factor of Calais
Tens of thousands more will try. What will those that fail then do? Will they think “shit, at least the UK gave me a fair go, oh well, now I’ll head back to Albania/Somalia”
Or will they simply try and cross illegally? As before, but in even greater numbers?
You don’t have an answer which doesn’t make you extremely uncomfortable. So you would rather provide no answer at all. It’s a kind of cowardice
If you provide safe routes, then there is far less argument legally about those who choose not to use them.
.................They have to hope and pray nobody else can be bought off ahead of them - as with the DUP in 2017...........................
A bit of re-writing of history there, Mr Mark, as you Tories always do.
The Lib Dems were not there waiting to be "bought off", as you put it, after their damaging experience of being in coalition with the Tories. Having been stabbed in the back by their so-called coalition partners, they made it quite clear that they would steer clear of the treacherous bastards (as their own Conservative Leader John Major used to call them). The only group that the Tories could look to for support was the DUP, their last resort - and as OGH has frequently pointed out - now there is nobody left willing to play ball with the Tories. Deservedly.
Mr Dixon sneers at the Lib Dems - as again is his custom - but he does so from his bolt-hole in deepest Scandinavia. His only source of information is what he picks up from the media - which is even less reliable as a source than Mr Mark's biased outpourings.
Is local government not an important area of influence and power?
Hahahaha. Nice try.
For a couple of decades, the LibDems tried to be all things to all voters. To Tories, they appealed as being not as scary as Labour. To Labour voters, they were nothing like those Tory scum. Riding two horses at once finally got spectaculalry unseated when you had issues of governance to cope with. Like tuition fees. Like an EU referendum - first promised to voters, then a term of the Coalition Agreement that "thou shall never talk of EU referenda".
The pretence of being two-faced could only work until you actually had power.
As to local government, the LibDems are quite good at getting control. They then show themselves to be utterly shite at governing. And their fall is equally spectacular.
But frankly, it is the only one trick pony your party can ride these days.
The problem the Lib Dem’s hit was that after Iraq, they were Spare Labour for a lot of centre left people.
When Iraq faded, these people were looking for an excuse to go home.
The coalition provided that excuse - the tuition fees were just the spec of dust in a supersaturated solution that precipitated crystallisation.
The Lib Dem’s have suffered from terrible timing - shorn of traditional voting blocks, something like Orange Book Lib Dem’ry is the natural political position of about 60% of the voters, I reckon.
On topic. I don't see it unless there's an SNP implosion (while noting that under FPTP, a relatively small drop n vote share could lead to an 'implosion').
Davey would have been the right leader at GE 2019, the non scary adult among the children. Next to Sunak and Starmer he's just another shade of beige.
I might bet on it at the right odds, but I think suggestions elsewhere of not much over 10% seem reasonable at present. If things change significantly in Scotland then it could be more interesting.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
Stopping the boats, if that's your main aim, is pretty simple. A UK asylum centre in Calais and ferry tickets to Dover.
Stopping boats without letting people in another way? Can't help you there.
Is it that simple? Will the Albanians simply give up when rejected at Calais?
Quite possibly. But it reduces the numbers of boat people, which makes it easier to catch and return those who remain.
Part of our problem at the moment is that the rate of people coming in vastly exceeds our state ability to process them.
So the UK is reduced to bloodcurdling threats that it probably can't carry out. Partly human rights law, but partly because the UK state can't reliably carry out anything. Trust me- that tends not to work.
Pitiful
Making asylum easier to claim at Calais - then giving the lucky ones tickets for the Dover Ferry - will just INCREASE the pull factor of Calais
Tens of thousands more will try. What will those that fail then do? Will they think “shit, at least the UK gave me a fair go, oh well, now I’ll head back to Albania/Somalia”
Or will they simply try and cross illegally? As before, but in even greater numbers?
You don’t have an answer which doesn’t make you extremely uncomfortable. So you would rather provide no answer at all. It’s a kind of cowardice
If you provide safe routes, then there is far less argument legally about those who choose not to use them.
Where are we going to deport them? We are incapable of deporting anyone because liberal lawyers go mad and Gary lineker calls you goebbels and everyone is pathetically spineless
And if we did start actually deporting those that failed the Calais asylum test then they’d all go back to destroying their documents and using the dinghies
It’s just another pitifuf non answer. It is pathetic
The choices for the UK government regarding the Dinghy People (barring some huge change in global geopolitical trends) can be boiled down to these three:
1. Violently push back the boats. Accept that many will drown. This will be morally unacceptable to 98% of the country
2. Immediately detain and deport all those who arrive. Disallow their rights. Off they go to Rwanda or whoever we can bribe - this will be palatable to much of the country but will be loathed by many liberals (and others). Also legally difficult
3. Basically accept there’s nothing we can do. Make some futile gestures like “helping French police”. Prohibit the use of the word “dinghy”. Accept that 100,000s will cross and this number will likely grow and grow. This will enrage much of the country and possibly lead to Britain’s first serious far right party
On International Women's Day, let's remind ourselves that the UK government believes that women who have been trafficked to the UK to be forced to work as sex slaves should be viewed as criminals and deported as soon as possible.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
Stopping the boats, if that's your main aim, is pretty simple. A UK asylum centre in Calais and ferry tickets to Dover.
Stopping boats without letting people in another way? Can't help you there.
Is it that simple? Will the Albanians simply give up when rejected at Calais?
Quite possibly. But it reduces the numbers of boat people, which makes it easier to catch and return those who remain.
Part of our problem at the moment is that the rate of people coming in vastly exceeds our state ability to process them.
So the UK is reduced to bloodcurdling threats that it probably can't carry out. Partly human rights law, but partly because the UK state can't reliably carry out anything. Trust me- that tends not to work.
Pitiful
Making asylum easier to claim at Calais - then giving the lucky ones tickets for the Dover Ferry - will just INCREASE the pull factor of Calais
Tens of thousands more will try. What will those that fail then do? Will they think “shit, at least the UK gave me a fair go, oh well, now I’ll head back to Albania/Somalia”
Or will they simply try and cross illegally? As before, but in even greater numbers?
You don’t have an answer which doesn’t make you extremely uncomfortable. So you would rather provide no answer at all. It’s a kind of cowardice
If you provide safe routes, then there is far less argument legally about those who choose not to use them.
Where are we going to deport them? We are incapable of deporting anyone because liberal lawyers go mad and Gary lineker calls you goebbels and everyone is pathetically spineless
And if we did start actually deporting those that failed the Calais asylum test then they’d all go back to destroying their documents and using the dinghies
It’s just another pitifuf non answer. It is pathetic
Where are we going to deport them to doesn't disappear as a question if you break the law to do it. But, clearly, if you do it lawfully lawyers will find it much harder to prevent.
I have the perfect solution to the boats: an agreement with Russia.
We have a border problem, they have a demographic crisis. Ship them off to Siberia to help make up the numbers.
Wouldn't they be recruited to Wagner instead?
I mean, it's very even-handed to help both sides militarily but the Ukrainians might be displeased.
We are continuously told that there is a shortage of people to harvest some crops. Apparently the scum have some crazy ideas about being paid a living wage.
Let’s borrow some Cultural Heritage*.
Since cheaper is better, all asylum seekers will work for free in the cotton strawberry fields.
*ask a moron with a Second Place In The Civil War flag on his pickup truck in Alabama.
Mr. Doethur, good point. Send them to the Ukrainians.
Mr. Tubbs, aye. Anyone getting information from the media would suppose women are far likelier to be the victim of physical assault, which isn't true. There's just more concern expressed about it.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
Concrete you say......would take a lot of it....
Depends what you use it for. Concrete overcoats for the gang masters?
I was thinking filling in the channel. Big picture. Shame Boris is no longer PM or I could have found an old Etonian chum of his to do a £50m publicly funded feasability study.
That might stop the boats, but wouldn't people just walk across instead? Which isn't likely to be a problem atm unless Jesus suddenly decides to take a hand.
You asked me to stop the boats with concrete? Not stop people crossing.
My other suggestion yesterday was if we all start speaking Welsh it will reduce the numbers who want to cross.....
"Home Secretary Suella Braverman said: (...) We must stop the boats. (...) It is completely unfair that people who travel through a string of safe countries then come to the UK illegally and abuse our asylum laws to avoid removal."
Human rights law is for wimps, libtards, whiners, and the "elite", right? It's for trade unionists, lefty lawyers, cultural Marxists, and Remoaners. We know their type. Give 'em a chance and they always go on about human rights. They want those boats to keep coming here. Well enough is enough. From NOW.
To be honest I just wonder whether people like Suella Braverman (and for that matter Rishi Sunak) have thought things through completely, if they have decided it's a good strategy for them to appeal to the anti-immigrant vote.
What is incorrect about what she is saying?
I'm not sure I can make it any simpler.
What I'm asking is whether it can be more likely than not incompatible with the ECHR, and yet for her to be confident it is compatible with international law.
Potentially if the ECHR is itself incompatible with the Refugee Convention?
You mean if the provisions of the ECHR were not considered to be part of international law?
That does seem to be implied logically by what she is saying, but can she really be saying that?
I'm thinking that it's a possible argument that the proposed Bill is compatible with the Refugee Convention and hence with "international law".
This is probably a dubious argument, but it's the best I've come up with (not that I would pretend to be an expert).
Well globally most people in civilised, western countries are not subject to the ECHR. EG Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply and all of them are subject to international laws and agreements.
Meanwhile the ECHR is so robust it had Russia as a member at rhe start of 2022. Good job there, great job ensuring a free press, free speech and free elections and avoiding a fascist regime coming to power and everything else the convention was supposed to deal with.
The ECHR is a failure and we could withdraw from it and still be an upstanding civilised nation subject to international law.
However it is my understanding that unless and until we do, it is part of OUR international law even if its not a part of other nations international law.
"Australia, America, Canada, New Zealand, Japan etc none of them have the ECHR apply"
Er, there's a rather different and more basic reason for that. They are not in Europe. The UK is.
Why are human rights in Europe special? On something like this shouldn't there be a global agreement?
It was introduced because Europe had very recently succumbed to barbarism and the majority of countries therein wanted a joint agreement to try and ensure that civilisation would never again leave our shared home.
That was a very long time ago, is it still relevant in 2023?
Europe has largely, with some admitted exceptions, avoided barbarism while it has been current. So yes. It is relevant.
Which Human Right to you object to most of the ones listed? The right to a fair trial? The right to property? The right to family? What is it that irks you about these? Do you yearn for a time when the U.K. could commit genocide on its own shores with impunity?
"largely"
So long as you avoid looking at nations like Russia, that had the ECHR seal of approval last year. 🤦♂️
I agree with the Human Rights from the Convention. I think those rights should be protected by the UK Parliament.
I do not agree with seconding that to unelected jurists that can be swayed by Roubles.
Parliament is sovereign in this country. We need protecting from it and the whims of populist demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life . Parliament can, and has, taken away the most basic human rights. We need the protection of the ECHR to protect us from populist parliaments elected on a platform to deprive minorities of human rights. As has happened in many countries. including this one.
We do not need protecting from Parliament. We need to protect ourselves by not elected demagogues elected to deprive minorities of basic human dignity and life. We need to protect ourselves by ejecting any politicians who do.
Russia was an ECHR signatory for the past two decades under Putin until the full scale invasion of Ukraine last year. Russia has no free press, free speech, free elections. Opposition politicians and critics are routinely arrested or worse killed extrajudicially. All happened under the purview of the ECHR. For a brief period following the initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014, Russia was sanctioned by the Council of Europe (ECHR) but then Russia cut off its flow of Roubles to the CoE and that decision was reversed. And that's who you want to entrust our minorities rights to? I'll pass thank you very much.
The ECHR is no protection from populist Parliaments, only eternal vigilance is. There are no short cuts here.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
Stopping the boats, if that's your main aim, is pretty simple. A UK asylum centre in Calais and ferry tickets to Dover.
Stopping boats without letting people in another way? Can't help you there.
Is it that simple? Will the Albanians simply give up when rejected at Calais?
Quite possibly. But it reduces the numbers of boat people, which makes it easier to catch and return those who remain.
Part of our problem at the moment is that the rate of people coming in vastly exceeds our state ability to process them.
So the UK is reduced to bloodcurdling threats that it probably can't carry out. Partly human rights law, but partly because the UK state can't reliably carry out anything. Trust me- that tends not to work.
Pitiful
Making asylum easier to claim at Calais - then giving the lucky ones tickets for the Dover Ferry - will just INCREASE the pull factor of Calais
Tens of thousands more will try. What will those that fail then do? Will they think “shit, at least the UK gave me a fair go, oh well, now I’ll head back to Albania/Somalia”
Or will they simply try and cross illegally? As before, but in even greater numbers?
You don’t have an answer which doesn’t make you extremely uncomfortable. So you would rather provide no answer at all. It’s a kind of cowardice
If you provide safe routes, then there is far less argument legally about those who choose not to use them.
Where are we going to deport them? We are incapable of deporting anyone because liberal lawyers go mad and Gary lineker calls you goebbels and everyone is pathetically spineless
And if we did start actually deporting those that failed the Calais asylum test then they’d all go back to destroying their documents and using the dinghies
It’s just another pitifuf non answer. It is pathetic
Where are we going to deport them to doesn't disappear as a question if you break the law to do it. But, clearly, if you do it lawfully lawyers will find it much harder to prevent.
Just address the issue without heading off into the comfortable land of liberal piffle, where you can pretend to be answering while saying absolutely nothing
If the legal routes to asylum (at Calais! Lol) prove to be genuinely tough and you genuinely deport them (again - lol) then all these economic migrants (which is what they are mainly) will go back to tearing up their passports and crossing at Calais on a dinghy
So you have achieved nothing. At some great expense and faff. I’ve given you the actual choices above
Most liberal takes seem to be mealy mouthed versions of answer 3, but with the pious hope that the British won’t complain and won’t vote in ever harder far right governments that WILL do something
It will be interesting to see Sir Kir Royale PM struggling with this problem. It will not be in his comfort zone. At all
(* except for viewers in Farageland, where it’s Happy Englandshire Wives, Handmaids, Marthas, Econowives and Aunts Day!)
This means that it’s also Why Isn’t There An International Men’s Day Day which coincidentally falls on the same date as There Is One You Stupid, Self pitying **** Day.
It’s easy to sneer at that type of response but I would argue the media make much more of the International Womens Day, than the Mens version.
They seem to make a thing about Women’s Day in Bulgaria - it is celebrated with cheap prices in bars etc for ladies. The women dress up specially and head out en mass, at least in Sofia.
Mr. Doethur, good point. Send them to the Ukrainians.
Mr. Tubbs, aye. Anyone getting information from the media would suppose women are far likelier to be the victim of physical assault, which isn't true. There's just more concern expressed about it.
On topic. I don't see it unless there's an SNP implosion (while noting that under FPTP, a relatively small drop n vote share could lead to an 'implosion').
Davey would have been the right leader at GE 2019, the non scary adult among the children. Next to Sunak and Starmer he's just another shade of beige.
I might bet on it at the right odds, but I think suggestions elsewhere of not much over 10% seem reasonable at present. If things change significantly in Scotland then it could be more interesting.
There seems to be widespread ignorance on the task facing Scottish Labour. Most people, including Mike himself, imply that SLab only need a wee swing in order to gain tons of SNP seats. That is simply not true, and is even less true under the new boundaries, which are surprisingly SNP-friendly.
With a modest SNP to SLab swing a handful of seats fall quite quickly (on UNS note, which never happens in reality of course). But it then takes a huge swing for the next 10 seats to fall. And if you are imagining SLab getting over 15 seats you need to pump in mind-boggling - and totally unrealistic - numbers.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It's a bill designed to fail - probably the first UK law ever drafted which says on its face that there's a better than evens chance of its conflicting with existing UK law, without doing anything to resolve that conflict.
IOW it seeks confrontation in the courts, purely so that the Home Secretary can blame others for her failure.
On topic. I don't see it unless there's an SNP implosion (while noting that under FPTP, a relatively small drop n vote share could lead to an 'implosion').
Davey would have been the right leader at GE 2019, the non scary adult among the children. Next to Sunak and Starmer he's just another shade of beige.
I might bet on it at the right odds, but I think suggestions elsewhere of not much over 10% seem reasonable at present. If things change significantly in Scotland then it could be more interesting.
From the latest yougov poll (the least favourable to the SNP but the most recent) it needs a further SNP drop of about 5% between now and the GE. 2-3% could be enough it the Tories implode too. I think it is more like a 20% shot, maybe 25%.
On topic - I think this is an interesting possibility. Because the Lib Dems are not getting any exposure these days, no-one is paying them any attention, which might be a mistake. Their targetting is ruthless now - the party's national money is being spent on 30 seats maximum, as well as the ones they hold. Remember Harold Wilson's dictum - for the Labour Party to form a Government, the (old) Liberals needed to poll 10% or more, in order to bleed off Conservative votes. It's not far off that at the moment, and it's one of the reasons why (with regard to previous threads) I think Labour will form the next Government. A Labour uptick in Scotland, a fallback for the SNP, Lib Dem targetting and a general public mood to punish the Tories might well see the Lib Dems back as the third party in Westminster. Hell, with one of the rogue polls recently (Tories down at 22% or thereabouts) it was possible to squint into the sun and see the Lib Dems as the official opposition. But for the record, I am not forecasting that - just a significant increase in Lib Dem fortunes, both at the Local Elections in May this year and at the General Election.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It's a bill designed to fail - probably the first UK law ever drafted which says on its face that there's a better than evens chance of its conflicting with existing UK law, without doing anything to resolve that conflict.
IOW it seeks confrontation in the courts, purely so that the Home Secretary can blame others for her failure.
In other words, Rishi Sunak is reminding us how he lost to Liz Truss.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
Concrete you say......would take a lot of it....
Depends what you use it for. Concrete overcoats for the gang masters?
I was thinking filling in the channel. Big picture. Shame Boris is no longer PM or I could have found an old Etonian chum of his to do a £50m publicly funded feasability study.
That might stop the boats, but wouldn't people just walk across instead? Which isn't likely to be a problem atm unless Jesus suddenly decides to take a hand.
You asked me to stop the boats with concrete? Not stop people crossing.
My other suggestion yesterday was if we all start speaking Welsh it will reduce the numbers who want to cross.....
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
Stopping the boats, if that's your main aim, is pretty simple. A UK asylum centre in Calais and ferry tickets to Dover.
Stopping boats without letting people in another way? Can't help you there.
Is it that simple? Will the Albanians simply give up when rejected at Calais?
Quite possibly. But it reduces the numbers of boat people, which makes it easier to catch and return those who remain.
Part of our problem at the moment is that the rate of people coming in vastly exceeds our state ability to process them.
So the UK is reduced to bloodcurdling threats that it probably can't carry out. Partly human rights law, but partly because the UK state can't reliably carry out anything. Trust me- that tends not to work.
Pitiful
Making asylum easier to claim at Calais - then giving the lucky ones tickets for the Dover Ferry - will just INCREASE the pull factor of Calais
Tens of thousands more will try. What will those that fail then do? Will they think “shit, at least the UK gave me a fair go, oh well, now I’ll head back to Albania/Somalia”
Or will they simply try and cross illegally? As before, but in even greater numbers?
You don’t have an answer which doesn’t make you extremely uncomfortable. So you would rather provide no answer at all. It’s a kind of cowardice
If you provide safe routes, then there is far less argument legally about those who choose not to use them.
Where are we going to deport them? We are incapable of deporting anyone because liberal lawyers go mad and Gary lineker calls you goebbels and everyone is pathetically spineless
And if we did start actually deporting those that failed the Calais asylum test then they’d all go back to destroying their documents and using the dinghies
It’s just another pitifuf non answer. It is pathetic
Liberal lawyers going mad or staying sane does not change the law.
If you want the policy objectives that the govt is pushing with their policy you need to be angry with the govt for not leaving the refugee convention not liberal lawyers.
Mr. kamski, Germans also tend to speak fantastic English, even using it for business meetings when everyone there is German.
As an aside, I occasionally watch Twitch streams in German just to try and remind myself of it, and little bits and pieces of English do creep in even in 'German' vocabulary.
A German speaking colleague complained of this. He gave the example that Germans will use the expression 'denken'outside the box'.'
Why they would ever use that most horrible of management cliches I have no idea. In any case, 'aus den kisten' would be far more poetic.
He blamed TV, incidentally.
Most Germans have pretty poor English. Better than the general level in Italy, but far far worse than in Scandinavia. In the new Bundesländer the English among older people is often almost non-existent.
And no, meetings where everyone is German are conducted in German. There might be exceptions if it's a strict policy of a foreign company, or perhaps postgraduate study that is conducted in English - but usually in those situations not everyone present is German anyway.
Of course there are lots of borrowed words from English, doesn't mean that people speak English, any more than English people using words like spaghetti or cappuccino means that they can speak Italian.
Whenever I go to Germany I am always astonished by the amount of English words used in TV adverts, on posters, in product branding, in news headlines etc
That perhaps explains the flawed impression that all Germans speak excellent English
It's interesting, I guess I've tuned it out because I only tend to notice it when it's used "incorrectly" (from an English point of view). A recent one is "Home-Office", as in "ich mache heute Home-Office", meaning "I'm working from home today".
I just had a random scan of a few headlines, articles and adverts, and I don't see so many English words (ignoring names of things like Samsung "Galaxy"):
Gaspipelines, False-Flag-Operation, Sport, Deal.
Almost as many borrowed from French: Depot, Recherche, Orange.
Had a chat with a barrister with impeccably right wing credentials and no fan of illegal border crossings.
Says yesterday's legislation is simply the worst piece of drafted legislation he has ever seen.
Like it was focus grouped and then drafted.
He feels sorry for the GLD teams that will have to defend this shit in court.
There's a retroactive clause in the bill that must have been written by Lionel Hutz.
It isn't serious law. Braverman sends a letter to Tory MPs saying she doesn't know if the bill is legal but there is "a greater than 50% chance" it isn't.
Then we get Dishi in front of a Stop The Boats lectern. Speaking in his Jackanory voice. Quite literally telling stories to political toddlers.
They know the plan - laughable to even use that word - doesn't work practically. They know it doesn't work legally. But they also know their remaining voters don't care, they just want action. Though I don't think "blame the courts" works as an excuse any longer.
The third plan in three years and legislation so obviously designed for dividing lines rather than results is too obviously transparent to fool most voters. And making Braverman the face of it just compounds the problem. She is massively unpopular.
I really can’t see it ending well for Sunak. The people he is targeting are those most likely to buy the Farage/Reform betrayal narrative that will inevitably explode into the right-wing press this summer when the boats keep on coming.
Cooper was right yesterday: people want results, not performative gestures that won’t work.
In a serious question:
How *would* anyone stop the boats?
It doesn't seem to me, short of major military operations on the beaches of Northern France, which ain't happening, or arranging odd accidents for all the traffickers - and even that would presumably pause rather than eliminate the problem - that there's much to be done about it.
That doesn't mean we can't still point and laugh at the stupidity of this idea, but are there are any concrete suggestions? If so, let's hear them.
I don't think you can stop them but I am pretty sure you can mitigate their effects and reduce their numbers, but that requires serious thinking, compromises and a lot more spending. It seems that the vast majority of the traffickers are situated on this side of the Channel, for example. That indicates that enforcement authorities could be doing a lot more than they are to tackle them - are they failing through lack of resources, planning, coordination, etc? Is anyone in government asking? And, as we know, the time it takes to process asylum claims is ridiculous. Tat is down to the Home Office and the people who run it. Then there are the six years of distrust and antagonism that were caused by Brexit. That will not all be undone immediately - and if it is to be done meaningfully, it cannot be done while trying to appease the ERG. And so on. What won't work is saying this is not our problem, everyone else has to handle it and we will break international law to try to get our way.
Eliminate demand.
1) all employers liable for employing undocumented (they actually are, sort off, now) 2) fine of £100k per employee. Directors personal assets liable etc. 3) 50K goes to the undocumented employee who gives evidence against the employer. In the event of a successful conviction. 4) indefinite leave to remain also granted to the employee on conviction of the employer.
Mr. Doethur, good point. Send them to the Ukrainians.
Mr. Tubbs, aye. Anyone getting information from the media would suppose women are far likelier to be the victim of physical assault, which isn't true. There's just more concern expressed about it.
Those numbers appear to have widened a bit from the last ones I've seen (which was closer to 60-40), but even so I reckon if you ask people "what percentage of victims of domestic violence are female" you'll tend to get answers much higher than 70%.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64798162
Never mind small boats, 30 years of Tory Dangerous Dogs Acts aren't working either.
A prescient fellow
There's much worthy work done in the small details, tremendous effort from councillors and officers, but influence and power for a political agenda? Not really.
During covid, they were actually pretty principled about attempting to maintain at least some of the principles of individual freedom against the power of the state. But their hearts didn't appear to be in it and they didn't find it as much fun as the culture war stuff.
Part of our problem at the moment is that the rate of people coming in vastly exceeds our state ability to process them.
So the UK is reduced to bloodcurdling threats that it probably can't carry out. Partly human rights law, but partly because the UK state can't reliably carry out anything. Trust me- that tends not to work.
#contemporarythoughts
Its also not necessary in order to critique a policy.
I mean, cocker spaniels or labradors are not aggressive and are not usually dangerous, but bulldogs, bull terriers, Alsatians, Rottweilers, akitas all can be very aggressive if not properly trained and controlled.
So can terriers be, but they're usually easier to deal with on account of being quite small.
As an aside, I occasionally watch Twitch streams in German just to try and remind myself of it, and little bits and pieces of English do creep in even in 'German' vocabulary.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/working-class-pupils-do-better-at-grammars-phzzhwtj6vp
Heath's government did nothing to stop local authorities turning grammars into comprehensives which had begun when Wilson's government pushed to end selective education(the trend only slowed when Thatcher was PM and slightly reversed with more pupils attending grammars when Major was PM). Hence most of the few remaining areas with grammars are in Tory controlled councils.
You can't even ballot to open new grammars now, only ballot to close them. True parental choice would at least allow that
'The River class is a class of offshore patrol vessels built primarily for the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom. A total of nine were built for the Royal Navy (RN), four Batch 1 and five Batch 2. One Batch 1 (HMS Clyde), which was the Falklands guard ship, was decommissioned and transferred at the end of its lease to the Royal Bahrain Naval Force.
The three remaining Batch 1 ships perform fisheries security and border patrol tasks in UK waters. The five new Batch 2 ships provide overseas forward presence, performing maritime security duties and disaster relief operations, often supported by a Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel.'
https://www.forces.net/services/navy/meet-royal-navys-fishery-protection-squadron emphasises they have lots of jobs to do, including fisheries protection. They'll sure be busy in the Dover Straits. But what about all that Brexitish fish? Just as well the Scottish Government has paid for its own fisheries protection patrol boats.
Why they would ever use that most horrible of management cliches I have no idea. In any case, 'aus den kisten' would be far more poetic.
He blamed TV, incidentally.
One needs to look at a broad range of pollsters, and see house trends over a significant period.
But then you already knew that.
'It's 1st March!'
'No, it's the vernal equinox!'
'Well, actually, it's...'
Round and round and round.
See also Brexit, grammar schools, PR, etc, etc...
Making asylum easier to claim at Calais - then giving the lucky ones tickets for the Dover Ferry - will just INCREASE the pull factor of Calais
Tens of thousands more will try. What will those that fail then do? Will they think “shit, at least the UK gave me a fair go, oh well, now I’ll head back to Albania/Somalia”
Or will they simply try and cross illegally? As before, but in even greater numbers?
You don’t have an answer which doesn’t make you extremely uncomfortable. So you would rather provide no answer at all. It’s a kind of cowardice
I was pointing out why some men say such things, not saying it myself.
Since you’re in the know, what will you be doing to highlight International Men’s Day?
There is a dog that us already well documented in my area (all the FB groups) for attacking other dogs, going at children. Been reported multiple times but police can't/won't do anything. Possible American Bully type thing.
Can I just say people seem to be misconstruing my post. I have no beef with international womens day.
‘He was oot o’ his kist!’
* Rishi: "I will definitely solve the illegal immigration problem before the next election"
* Rishi solves the illegal immigration problem
* Electorate: "Thanks so much, Rishi! Now it's over to you, Keir, to solve the cost of living crisis"
What will happen is this:
* the Tories will make immigration the main issue
* after whatever solution Rishi brings to any aspect of the illegal immigration problem, the Tories will keep immigration as the main issue and they will fight Labour over some other aspect of it
* the electorate will lap it up.
1. Violently push back the boats. Accept that many will drown. This will be morally unacceptable to 98% of the country
2. Immediately detain and deport all those who arrive. Disallow their rights. Off they go to Rwanda or whoever we can bribe - this will be palatable to much of the country but will be loathed by many liberals (and others). Also legally difficult
3. Basically accept there’s nothing we can do. Make some futile gestures like “helping French police”. Prohibit the use of the word “dinghy”. Accept that 100,000s will cross and this number will likely grow and grow. This will enrage much of the country and possibly lead to Britain’s first serious far right party
That’s it. That’s the choice. Not good
And no, meetings where everyone is German are conducted in German. There might be exceptions if it's a strict policy of a foreign company, or perhaps postgraduate study that is conducted in English - but usually in those situations not everyone present is German anyway.
Of course there are lots of borrowed words from English, doesn't mean that people speak English, any more than English people using words like spaghetti or cappuccino means that they can speak Italian.
I'm tellt the auncient Celts collectit heids
lik some fowk gaither stamps,
an gin ye were thair guest wad shaw ye kists
fu o thair latest prizes.
Nou we're delivrit frae sic ugsome weys,
That perhaps explains the flawed impression that all Germans speak excellent English
When Iraq faded, these people were looking for an excuse to go home.
The coalition provided that excuse - the tuition fees were just the spec of dust in a supersaturated solution that precipitated crystallisation.
The Lib Dem’s have suffered from terrible timing - shorn of traditional voting blocks, something like Orange Book Lib Dem’ry is the natural political position of about 60% of the voters, I reckon.
Davey would have been the right leader at GE 2019, the non scary adult among the children. Next to Sunak and Starmer he's just another shade of beige.
I might bet on it at the right odds, but I think suggestions elsewhere of not much over 10% seem reasonable at present. If things change significantly in Scotland then it could be more interesting.
And if we did start actually deporting those that failed the Calais asylum test then they’d all go back to destroying their documents and using the dinghies
It’s just another pitifuf non answer. It is pathetic
Perez to be winner without Verstappen at 2.5. Verstappen to win 15+ races at 3.5.
Last year, Verstappen won 14 races. Perez was 4 points off being 2nd then.
Everything else is wank. Mostly liberal wank but plenty of Tory waffle as well.
None of these choices is nice. They are not nice at all. But they are where we are
Let’s borrow some Cultural Heritage*.
Since cheaper is better, all asylum seekers will work for free in the cotton strawberry fields.
*ask a moron with a Second Place In The Civil War flag on his pickup truck in Alabama.
Russia was an ECHR signatory for the past two decades under Putin until the full scale invasion of Ukraine last year. Russia has no free press, free speech, free elections. Opposition politicians and critics are routinely arrested or worse killed extrajudicially. All happened under the purview of the ECHR. For a brief period following the initial invasion of Ukraine in 2014, Russia was sanctioned by the Council of Europe (ECHR) but then Russia cut off its flow of Roubles to the CoE and that decision was reversed. And that's who you want to entrust our minorities rights to? I'll pass thank you very much.
The ECHR is no protection from populist Parliaments, only eternal vigilance is. There are no short cuts here.
If the legal routes to asylum (at Calais! Lol) prove to be genuinely tough and you genuinely deport them (again - lol) then all these economic migrants (which is what they are mainly) will go back to tearing up their passports and crossing at Calais on a dinghy
So you have achieved nothing. At some great expense and faff. I’ve given you the actual choices above
Most liberal takes seem to be mealy mouthed versions of answer 3, but with the pious hope that the British won’t complain and won’t vote in ever harder far right governments that WILL do something
It will be interesting to see Sir Kir Royale PM struggling with this problem. It will not be in his comfort zone. At all
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabusevictimcharacteristicsenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2022#sex
Do you have a source for alternative figures?
With a modest SNP to SLab swing a handful of seats fall quite quickly (on UNS note, which never happens in reality of course). But it then takes a huge swing for the next 10 seats to fall. And if you are imagining SLab getting over 15 seats you need to pump in mind-boggling - and totally unrealistic - numbers.
IOW it seeks confrontation in the courts, purely so that the Home Secretary can blame others for her failure.
If you want the policy objectives that the govt is pushing with their policy you need to be angry with the govt for not leaving the refugee convention not liberal lawyers.
I just had a random scan of a few headlines, articles and adverts, and I don't see so many English words (ignoring names of things like Samsung "Galaxy"):
Gaspipelines, False-Flag-Operation, Sport, Deal.
Almost as many borrowed from French:
Depot, Recherche, Orange.
The French borrowings tend to be older though.
1) all employers liable for employing undocumented (they actually are, sort off, now)
2) fine of £100k per employee. Directors personal assets liable etc.
3) 50K goes to the undocumented employee who gives evidence against the employer. In the event of a successful conviction.
4) indefinite leave to remain also granted to the employee on conviction of the employer.