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.
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.
The Tory Party donors do not like this one.....I wonder why......
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
I am addressing the issue. You are much better placed to deal with a problem if you do so lawfully than if you break the law. That is not a position of liberal comfort, it is a statement of fact. If you want mass deportations to Rwanda, you will get them if they are lawful. You will not get them if they are not. There is more chance of them being seen as lawful if genuine asylum seekers have a way to claim asylum. Many currently do not.
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%.
Yes, domestic violence against men is (or has been) an underappreciated issue. Although there is a danger of it being used to also belittle the scale of the domestic violence against women problem.
ETA: There's also the question (which I don't think is answered in the stats) of what proportion of male domestic violence victims are being abused by men rather than women.
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.
The Tory Party donors do not like this one.....I wonder why......
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%.
There is also the issue of under reporting - the Home Office did a study, a while back that found that while something like 30% of women go to the police concerning domestic abuse, the number is around 15% for men.
The numbers for “report to some kind of organisation” rather than just the police were higher, but similarly ratio’d
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%.
Yes, domestic violence against men is (or has been) an underappreciated issue. Although there is a danger of it being used to also belittle the scale of the domestic violence against women problem.
It still is. And one of the reasons is if anyone tries to raise it they get howled down for "ignoring the problem of DV against women"...
When I squint at the Cons party I can see much has changed, not least Rishi himself (that he is a leaver is subordinate to the fact that he seems to be a competent technocrat). However, he has blundered imo (eg Braverman) and presumably this is on account of the ERG types who are looking over his shoulder. Plus their bizarre (but ameliorated, courtesy of Rishi) determination to drive the UK into the ground rather than give an inch to the EU over anything.
Is the party still nasty? Sort of, yes it is. So would I vote for them tomorrow? No. They need to be taught a lesson about not being arseholes and I don't believe they have learned that lesson.
Would I vote Lab? No I don't think so. Too many trots requiring red meat for me to trust them. Will need to study their retail offer. The five missions mean nothing so I need to see the bigger picture.
Which leaves...the LibDems. As always, the perception is a harmless use my vote NOTA strategy so my pen might stray there because what harm can it do plus I quite liked the Coalition.
I wouldn't rule out Mike's premise at all.
That's a pretty good post. There aren't many who consider themselves civilised who would vote for a party that had Suella Rraverman as Home Secretary however pragmatic their leader might be. The reason Blair did so well was because most people shared his values. He seemed like a decent human being. No leader with Braverman attached to his coat tails seems like that
It's all very well thinking that people smuggling should be stopped but that's a long way from appointing someone who appears to have a total disregard for those less fortunate than themselves. Hollywood would struggle to invent a character like Braverman. Since Javier Bardem in 'No Country for Old Men' audiences have demanded nuance in their monsters.
We might not like some of SKS's fellow travellers but as yet he hasn't appointed any monsters to senior positions. When and if he does it might be worth a rethink. But priority number one has to be the removal of the Nasty Party. All of them. As Peter O'Toole said in L of A "No Prisoners!"
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.
And some lovelyputgothersuperlongwordstoo that in most languages you can't do.
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
Here’s a good example of the challenge facing the Liberal Democrats: a massive 36% of respondents in this survey (and this survey is fairly typical) do not feel that they know enough about the SLD leader to be able to give an opinion. Most of them have probably never even heard of him.
The GB LD leader Davey is so insignificant to Scottish public life that the pollster didn’t even bother asking about him.
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.
The Tory Party donors do not like this one.....I wonder why......
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.
The French borrowings tend to be older though.
I don’t think that’s true.
The front page (online) of Bild right now:
Live ticker Champions League insider Game of Homes Baby Too hot to handle Playboy VIP Tickets Star Film and Fun Handy Sex Stylebook Fitbook
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.
The Tory Party donors do not like this one.....I wonder why......
When employers have cooperated with the police/immigration to highlight undocumented workers, they have met with a wall of abuse from the Left.
The difference with my suggestion is paying for the information. Which will increase the reporting/prosecuting rate to 100%
Every ambulance chasing solicitor will be on this like a tramp on chips.
Average fine of £5k if caught will not change the economic incenvtives for those who are not motivated by morals or the law. Make it £100k per employee and the incentives change.
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%.
Yes, domestic violence against men is (or has been) an underappreciated issue. Although there is a danger of it being used to also belittle the scale of the domestic violence against women problem.
It still is. And one of the reasons is if anyone tries to raise it they get howled down for "ignoring the problem of DV against women"...
A friend had a work colleague in an extreme situation.
On more than one occasion, after being put in hospital by his wife, he was arrested by police. The grounds were, as I understand it, that if he was in that state, he must have done *some* violence to her.
Here’s a good example of the challenge facing the Liberal Democrats: a massive 36% of respondents in this survey (and this survey is fairly typical) do not feel that they know enough about the SLD leader to be able to give an opinion. Most of them have probably never even heard of him.
Tbf that'll be partly down to Cole-Hamilton being a shy, retiring, publicity-shunning type..
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Here’s a good example of the challenge facing the Liberal Democrats: a massive 36% of respondents in this survey (and this survey is fairly typical) do not feel that they know enough about the SLD leader to be able to give an opinion. Most of them have probably never even heard of him.
Tbf that'll be partly down to Cole-Hamilton being a shy, retiring publicity-shunning type..
He’s a wee gobshite. But thankfully an invisible wee gobshite.
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
I am addressing the issue. You are much better placed to deal with a problem if you do so lawfully than if you break the law. That is not a position of liberal comfort, it is a statement of fact. If you want mass deportations to Rwanda, you will get them if they are lawful. You will not get them if they are not. There is more chance of them being seen as lawful if genuine asylum seekers have a way to claim asylum. Many currently do not.
And if you seek changes in international conventions, then seeking agreement with other signatories who face the same future problems is likely to be a far better solution than unilateral action.
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?
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.
The Tory Party donors do not like this one.....I wonder why......
When employers have cooperated with the police/immigration to highlight undocumented workers, they have met with a wall of abuse from the Left.
The difference with my suggestion is paying for the information. Which will increase the reporting/prosecuting rate to 100%
Every ambulance chasing solicitor will be on this like a tramp on chips.
Average fine of £5k if caught will not change the economic incenvtives for those who are not motivated by morals or the law. Make it £100k per employee and the incentives change.
It also needs to be £100k per employee with personal liability for the directors of the firm
The irony is that we've been saying it on here for 3+ years and it's a very easy quick fix that no opposition party is going to be able to argue against yet the Government doesn't even seem to have looked at 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.
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?
If so, then its legal, is it not?
Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.
Here’s a good example of the challenge facing the Liberal Democrats: a massive 36% of respondents in this survey (and this survey is fairly typical) do not feel that they know enough about the SLD leader to be able to give an opinion. Most of them have probably never even heard of him.
The GB LD leader Davey is so insignificant to Scottish public life that the pollster didn’t even bother asking about him.
Interesting. I am surprised that the "Don't Know" figure is so high for Anas Sarwar.
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
I am addressing the issue. You are much better placed to deal with a problem if you do so lawfully than if you break the law. That is not a position of liberal comfort, it is a statement of fact. If you want mass deportations to Rwanda, you will get them if they are lawful. You will not get them if they are not. There is more chance of them being seen as lawful if genuine asylum seekers have a way to claim asylum. Many currently do not.
And if you seek changes in international conventions, then seeking agreement with other signatories who face the same future problems is likely to be a far better solution than unilateral action.
Of course. But effective action does not sit with the electoral imperatives of a government that is immensely unpopular and needs to find a way to revive its flagging fortunes with less than two years to go before the country delivers its verdict. All this is about dividing lines, nothing more. It's so clear you can see it from space and that's why I am not convinced it will be a winning strategy.
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
Braverman's rider was that as far as she is concerned the bill has a greater than 50% chance of being in conflict with existing laws.
Which presumably means they would have to amend those other laws or amend the bill (Act by then) if challenged and the challenge succeeds.
As you say, the government creates laws that is not the issue. The issue is that the law they are proposing may break some of their existing laws.
Edit: politically I think they'll say "bring it on". Reports have described them as "very relaxed" about any challenges. Because they know politically it is popular to try to stop the boats.
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill...
Then read the bill. It says on its face that it's more probable than not that the new law conflicts with existing law - which is being left in place.
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?
If so, then its legal, is it not?
Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.
Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.
Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.
Here’s a good example of the challenge facing the Liberal Democrats: a massive 36% of respondents in this survey (and this survey is fairly typical) do not feel that they know enough about the SLD leader to be able to give an opinion. Most of them have probably never even heard of him.
Tbf that'll be partly down to Cole-Hamilton being a shy, retiring publicity-shunning type..
He’s a wee gobshite. But thankfully an invisible wee gobshite.
Quite surprised at that dissatisfied figure for SKS, doesn't suggest a massive resurgence of affection for the party of which SLab is a sub branch.
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.
The Tory Party donors do not like this one.....I wonder why......
When employers have cooperated with the police/immigration to highlight undocumented workers, they have met with a wall of abuse from the Left.
The difference with my suggestion is paying for the information. Which will increase the reporting/prosecuting rate to 100%
Every ambulance chasing solicitor will be on this like a tramp on chips.
Average fine of £5k if caught will not change the economic incenvtives for those who are not motivated by morals or the law. Make it £100k per employee and the incentives change.
It also needs to be £100k per employee with personal liability for the directors of the firm
The irony is that we've been saying it on here for 3+ years and it's a very easy quick fix that no opposition party is going to be able to argue against yet the Government doesn't even seem to have looked at it.
They want the problem to stay a problem. It wins them cheap votes.
Fix it and more likely they will lose their seats.
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill...
Then read the bill. It says on its face that it's more probable than not that the new law conflicts with existing law - which is being left in place.
Far from unprecedented, is there a notwithstanding clause in place?
If so, then surely the new law takes precedence over the existing law, so the existing law remains law for all circumstances not covered by the new law?
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.
The French borrowings tend to be older though.
I don’t think that’s true.
The front page (online) of Bild right now:
Live ticker Champions League insider Game of Homes Baby Too hot to handle Playboy VIP Tickets Star Film and Fun Handy Sex Stylebook Fitbook
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?
If so, then its legal, is it not?
Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.
Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.
Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?
If so, then its legal, is it not?
Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.
Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.
Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?
If so, then its legal, is it not?
Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.
Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.
Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.
Here’s a good example of the challenge facing the Liberal Democrats: a massive 36% of respondents in this survey (and this survey is fairly typical) do not feel that they know enough about the SLD leader to be able to give an opinion. Most of them have probably never even heard of him.
Tbf that'll be partly down to Cole-Hamilton being a shy, retiring publicity-shunning type..
He’s a wee gobshite. But thankfully an invisible wee gobshite.
Quite surprised at that dissatisfied figure for SKS, doesn't suggest a massive resurgence of affection for the party of which SLab is a sub branch.
Good morning
It would be more relevant if this poll was conducted now following the SNP pushing their self destruct button in public
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
Not sure whose post you are referring to, but you haven't addressed the points I made, but that is normal for you as you never do.
Are all these Tories I refer to lefties eg Heath's govt, Surrey County Council? Did you really mean to call your own current MPs lefties who support Comprehensive schools? They were your actual words re David Johnson. You have declared every Tory on this site as not being a real Tory at some time or other. You are now doing the same to previous and current govts and Tory controlled councils. Who is left?
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.
The Tory Party donors do not like this one.....I wonder why......
When employers have cooperated with the police/immigration to highlight undocumented workers, they have met with a wall of abuse from the Left.
The difference with my suggestion is paying for the information. Which will increase the reporting/prosecuting rate to 100%
Every ambulance chasing solicitor will be on this like a tramp on chips.
Average fine of £5k if caught will not change the economic incenvtives for those who are not motivated by morals or the law. Make it £100k per employee and the incentives change.
It also needs to be £100k per employee with personal liability for the directors of the firm
The irony is that we've been saying it on here for 3+ years and it's a very easy quick fix that no opposition party is going to be able to argue against yet the Government doesn't even seem to have looked at it.
Yup - the 100k plus directors liability is vital. Hence it is the core of my idea.
As to why not - during the New Labour years a relative running a building business repeatedly reported instance of illegal and dangerous activities by other firms. He was told not to make trouble since it would only disrupt the way things are. The same comments carried on through the change in government.
With occasional “don’t be racist” - the companies nearly always are run by an immigrant exploiting fellow immigrants from the same country. The classic trick is to bring in people who speak no English - easier to control.
We have seen during COVID some of what goes on - I’m thinking of the conditions in factories around Leicester, for example.
I'll give a specific example of where I think Parliament should override International Law, away from the heat and fire of migration: Cannabis.
I dislike Cannabis, I think smoking it is a very bad idea, but I think it should be completely legalised and regulated. I think prohibition has failed, and that legalisation and regulation as has been done in Canada for instance is a much better idea.
International Law forbids the legalisation of Cannabis. Canada chose, quite rightly in my humble opinion, to say that notwithstanding International Law they are going to legalise it anyway. The UK can and should do the same.
What the Law of the Land should be should be a matter for Parliament and political debate. If the law is an ass, change 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.
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?
If so, then its legal, is it not?
Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.
Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.
Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.
Have you heard of international law?
Yes. Its a bad joke.
Parliament can override international law.
It can't override it, it can legislate to make it unenforceable in the UK. The UK then lives with the consequences of that because the international law still exists. In the case of the illegal immigration legislation, though, the government is saying it is not acting contrary to international law or seeking to make it unenforceable.
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?
If so, then its legal, is it not?
Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.
Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.
Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.
Have you heard of international law?
Yes. Its a bad joke.
Parliament can override international law.
It can't override it, it can legislate to make it unenforceable in the UK. The UK then lives with the consequences of that because the international law still exists. In the case of the illegal immigration legislation, though, the government is saying it is not acting contrary to international law or seeking to make it unenforceable.
We live with the consequences then, if that is what we choose to do, that is a matter for politics not lawyers.
If Parliament passes a Bill overriding international law domestically, eg by legalising cannabis which I wholeheartedly support in violation of international law, then there are no international courts that can override the UK Parliament. Nor should there be.
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?
If so, then its legal, is it not?
Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.
Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.
Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.
When Parliament makes new law, it ensures that it either doesn't conflict with existing law, or repeals and replaces those part of existing law which are in conflict. This bill is probably the first ever to say, on its face, that it probably conflicts with existing UK law, but that law is being left in place.
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
I don't understand why a would be migrant, with the money to pay for a boat trip, doesn't instead buy some decent clothes and luggage and take a holiday in Ireland. They can then come to the UK on a ferry as a tourist with zero checks in my experience.
Here’s a good example of the challenge facing the Liberal Democrats: a massive 36% of respondents in this survey (and this survey is fairly typical) do not feel that they know enough about the SLD leader to be able to give an opinion. Most of them have probably never even heard of him.
The GB LD leader Davey is so insignificant to Scottish public life that the pollster didn’t even bother asking about him.
Interesting. I am surprised that the "Don't Know" figure is so high for Anas Sarwar.
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?
If so, then its legal, is it not?
Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.
Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.
Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.
Have you heard of international law?
Yes. Its a bad joke.
Parliament can override international law.
It can't override it, it can legislate to make it unenforceable in the UK. The UK then lives with the consequences of that because the international law still exists. In the case of the illegal immigration legislation, though, the government is saying it is not acting contrary to international law or seeking to make it unenforceable.
We live with the consequences then, if that is what we choose to do, that is a matter for politics not lawyers.
If Parliament passes a Bill overriding international law domestically, eg by legalising cannabis which I wholeheartedly support in violation of international law, then there are no international courts that can override the UK Parliament. Nor should there be.
No snark here, just genuine interest - what is the international treaty that forbids the legalisation of cannabis?
Lawyers will always test laws in a democracy. We should be pleased that they do. It forces legislators to act lawfully.
I'll give a specific example of where I think Parliament should override International Law, away from the heat and fire of migration: Cannabis.
I dislike Cannabis, I think smoking it is a very bad idea, but I think it should be completely legalised and regulated. I think prohibition has failed, and that legalisation and regulation as has been done in Canada for instance is a much better idea.
International Law forbids the legalisation of Cannabis. Canada chose, quite rightly in my humble opinion, to say that notwithstanding International Law they are going to legalise it anyway. The UK can and should do the same.
What the Law of the Land should be should be a matter for Parliament and political debate. If the law is an ass, change it.
IIRC back in the day, a slave escaped from an American slave ship, while in harbour, and swam to a Royal Navy ship.
The American captain demanded the slave back, citing international 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?
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?
If so, then its legal, is it not?
Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.
Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.
Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.
When Parliament makes new law, it ensures that it either doesn't conflict with existing law, or repeals and replaces those part of existing law which are in conflict. This bill is probably the first ever to say, on its face, that it probably conflicts with existing UK law, but that law is being left in place.
All of your examples have no relevance to that.
I find that really hard to believe. No other law has ever been passed that gives an exception to another law? I'm sorry, I don't believe that.
Exceptions to the law happen all the time, notwithstanding clauses can even appear within the very same law let alone a separate law.
Just because you dislike this law, does not make it original. The principle of saying this is the law, notwithstanding another law, is far from original.
Robert Jenrick has demanded Lineker is sacked. Richard Sharpe and Tim Davie own the BBC who are now investigating. In my view Lineker is toast!
I demand that all people demanding that people demanding that people should be cancelled for demanding that people should be cancelled…. I forgot what I was saying.
I'll give a specific example of where I think Parliament should override International Law, away from the heat and fire of migration: Cannabis.
I dislike Cannabis, I think smoking it is a very bad idea, but I think it should be completely legalised and regulated. I think prohibition has failed, and that legalisation and regulation as has been done in Canada for instance is a much better idea.
International Law forbids the legalisation of Cannabis. Canada chose, quite rightly in my humble opinion, to say that notwithstanding International Law they are going to legalise it anyway. The UK can and should do the same.
What the Law of the Land should be should be a matter for Parliament and political debate. If the law is an ass, change it.
IIRC back in the day, a slave escaped from an American slave ship, while in harbour, and swam to a Royal Navy ship.
The American captain demanded the slave back, citing international law.
The RN Captain told him to do one.
I bet the Americans have got a thousand stories like that with just the odd tweak....
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.
The Tory Party donors do not like this one.....I wonder why......
When employers have cooperated with the police/immigration to highlight undocumented workers, they have met with a wall of abuse from the Left.
The difference with my suggestion is paying for the information. Which will increase the reporting/prosecuting rate to 100%
Every ambulance chasing solicitor will be on this like a tramp on chips.
Average fine of £5k if caught will not change the economic incenvtives for those who are not motivated by morals or the law. Make it £100k per employee and the incentives change.
Here’s a good example of the challenge facing the Liberal Democrats: a massive 36% of respondents in this survey (and this survey is fairly typical) do not feel that they know enough about the SLD leader to be able to give an opinion. Most of them have probably never even heard of him.
The GB LD leader Davey is so insignificant to Scottish public life that the pollster didn’t even bother asking about him.
Interesting. I am surprised that the "Don't Know" figure is so high for Anas Sarwar.
He has an astonishingly low profile. He let’s BBC Scotland do his work for him.
I dislike this policy, which seems government by headline rather than law. I dislike Lineker's reaction, which is ludicrously over the top and demeans himself. And I dislike Jenrick's response, which is excessively harsh.
Will there be a fourth domino in this line of nincompoopery?
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?
If so, then its legal, is it not?
Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.
Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.
Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.
Have you heard of international law?
Yes. Its a bad joke.
Parliament can override international law.
It can't override it, it can legislate to make it unenforceable in the UK. The UK then lives with the consequences of that because the international law still exists. In the case of the illegal immigration legislation, though, the government is saying it is not acting contrary to international law or seeking to make it unenforceable.
We live with the consequences then, if that is what we choose to do, that is a matter for politics not lawyers.
If Parliament passes a Bill overriding international law domestically, eg by legalising cannabis which I wholeheartedly support in violation of international law, then there are no international courts that can override the UK Parliament. Nor should there be.
No snark here, just genuine interest - what is the international treaty that forbids the legalisation of cannabis?
Lawyers will always test laws in a democracy. We should be pleased that they do. It forces legislators to act lawfully.
The International Convention on Dangerous Drugs - though apparently cannabis was removed from its schedule in 2021, I wasn't aware of that, so its no longer the law. But it was the law at the time that Canada legalised it in 2018.
The Canadians, deliberately and rightly in my view, chose to break the law as it stood and eventually the law caught up with them. That's sovereign democracy and quite right too.
If eg the ECHR signed in 1950 had defined in International Law marriage as being between one man and one woman only, and countries were vetoing attempts to amend that, then would you have supported the UK legalising equality in marriage in deliberate contravention of that international law? I would have.
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill...
Then read the bill. It says on its face that it's more probable than not that the new law conflicts with existing law - which is being left in place.
Far from unprecedented, is there a notwithstanding clause in place?
If so, then surely the new law takes precedence over the existing law, so the existing law remains law for all circumstances not covered by the new law?
No. The conflict is left in place. Secretary Suella Braverman has made the following statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998: I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
The only provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 formally set aside in the proposed bill is this one. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (interpretation of legislation) does not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act.
Here’s a good example of the challenge facing the Liberal Democrats: a massive 36% of respondents in this survey (and this survey is fairly typical) do not feel that they know enough about the SLD leader to be able to give an opinion. Most of them have probably never even heard of him.
Tbf that'll be partly down to Cole-Hamilton being a shy, retiring publicity-shunning type..
He’s a wee gobshite. But thankfully an invisible wee gobshite.
Quite surprised at that dissatisfied figure for SKS, doesn't suggest a massive resurgence of affection for the party of which SLab is a sub branch.
The 2015 Lab to SNP switchers switched for a plethora of good reasons. They have since gone native and have the zeal of all converts. They are extremely critical of all things Labour.
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
I don't understand why a would be migrant, with the money to pay for a boat trip, doesn't instead buy some decent clothes and luggage and take a holiday in Ireland. They can then come to the UK on a ferry as a tourist with zero checks in my experience.
Unless things have changed there are significant checks on the Northern Ireland - GB ferries. It's often the case that you will see people such as Army deserters being arrested.
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
I don't understand why a would be migrant, with the money to pay for a boat trip, doesn't instead buy some decent clothes and luggage and take a holiday in Ireland. They can then come to the UK on a ferry as a tourist with zero checks in my experience.
1. That is already happening in both directions, to an extent
2. However there is the issue of having to show your passport when you arrive in Ireland from non-UK destinations. Ireland is not in Schengen
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill...
Then read the bill. It says on its face that it's more probable than not that the new law conflicts with existing law - which is being left in place.
Far from unprecedented, is there a notwithstanding clause in place?
If so, then surely the new law takes precedence over the existing law, so the existing law remains law for all circumstances not covered by the new law?
No. The conflict is left in place. Secretary Suella Braverman has made the following statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998: I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
The only provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 formally set aside in the proposed bill is this one. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (interpretation of legislation) does not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act.
So if interpretation of legislation is set aside by the Act, and Parliament knowingly and openly proceeds to pass the Act knowing it contravenes the prior legislation, then does the new Act not take legal precedence over the prior Acts and can't be interpreted differently?
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?
If so, then its legal, is it not?
Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.
Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.
Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.
When Parliament makes new law, it ensures that it either doesn't conflict with existing law, or repeals and replaces those part of existing law which are in conflict. This bill is probably the first ever to say, on its face, that it probably conflicts with existing UK law, but that law is being left in place.
All of your examples have no relevance to that.
I find that really hard to believe. No other law has ever been passed that gives an exception to another law? I'm sorry, I don't believe that.
It's not making an exception to the law. It is quite formally setting up a conflict and not resolving it.
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.
The French borrowings tend to be older though.
I don’t think that’s true.
The front page (online) of Bild right now:
Live ticker Champions League insider Game of Homes Baby Too hot to handle Playboy VIP Tickets Star Film and Fun Handy Sex Stylebook Fitbook
Apart from names like 'Champions League' hardly any English to be seen at all apart from 'CASH CALL' which seems to be the name of a competition Bild is running.
Here’s a good example of the challenge facing the Liberal Democrats: a massive 36% of respondents in this survey (and this survey is fairly typical) do not feel that they know enough about the SLD leader to be able to give an opinion. Most of them have probably never even heard of him.
Tbf that'll be partly down to Cole-Hamilton being a shy, retiring publicity-shunning type..
He’s a wee gobshite. But thankfully an invisible wee gobshite.
Quite surprised at that dissatisfied figure for SKS, doesn't suggest a massive resurgence of affection for the party of which SLab is a sub branch.
Good morning
It would be more relevant if this poll was conducted now following the SNP pushing their self destruct button in public
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.
The Tory Party donors do not like this one.....I wonder why......
When employers have cooperated with the police/immigration to highlight undocumented workers, they have met with a wall of abuse from the Left.
The difference with my suggestion is paying for the information. Which will increase the reporting/prosecuting rate to 100%
Every ambulance chasing solicitor will be on this like a tramp on chips.
Average fine of £5k if caught will not change the economic incenvtives for those who are not motivated by morals or the law. Make it £100k per employee and the incentives change.
Let them work. We need them.
If they are working illegally - the government isn't seeing the income tax revenue
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?
If so, then its legal, is it not?
Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.
Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.
Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.
When Parliament makes new law, it ensures that it either doesn't conflict with existing law, or repeals and replaces those part of existing law which are in conflict. This bill is probably the first ever to say, on its face, that it probably conflicts with existing UK law, but that law is being left in place.
All of your examples have no relevance to that.
I find that really hard to believe. No other law has ever been passed that gives an exception to another law? I'm sorry, I don't believe that.
It's not making an exception to the law. It is quite formally setting up a conflict and not resolving it.
How is the conflict not resolved by the new legislation taking precedence over it? And the explicit removal of interpretation surely confirms that?
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
I don't understand why a would be migrant, with the money to pay for a boat trip, doesn't instead buy some decent clothes and luggage and take a holiday in Ireland. They can then come to the UK on a ferry as a tourist with zero checks in my experience.
Unless things have changed there are significant checks on the Northern Ireland - GB ferries. It's often the case that you will see people such as Army deserters being arrested.
Concerns about terrorism as well. And latterly, Men Of Violence/Community Leaders selling their surplus guns into the U.K. underworld.
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill...
Then read the bill. It says on its face that it's more probable than not that the new law conflicts with existing law - which is being left in place.
Far from unprecedented, is there a notwithstanding clause in place?
If so, then surely the new law takes precedence over the existing law, so the existing law remains law for all circumstances not covered by the new law?
No. The conflict is left in place. Secretary Suella Braverman has made the following statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998: I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
The only provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 formally set aside in the proposed bill is this one. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (interpretation of legislation) does not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act.
So if interpretation of legislation is set aside by the Act, and Parliament knowingly and openly proceeds to pass the Act knowing it contravenes the prior legislation, then does the new Act not take legal precedence over the prior Acts and can't be interpreted differently?
No. It is being left deliberately as a conflict which will be fought out in the courts. With all the attendant "betraying Britain" headlines.
If they wanted to override the HRA1998 provisions as you suggest, they could and would have done so in the text of the bill.
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
I don't understand why a would be migrant, with the money to pay for a boat trip, doesn't instead buy some decent clothes and luggage and take a holiday in Ireland. They can then come to the UK on a ferry as a tourist with zero checks in my experience.
Ireland isn't in Schengen, so they would need a visa to board a ferry or a plane. And if the can't get a visa to enter the UK, the chances are they would not get one to enter Ireland either.
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
I don't understand why a would be migrant, with the money to pay for a boat trip, doesn't instead buy some decent clothes and luggage and take a holiday in Ireland. They can then come to the UK on a ferry as a tourist with zero checks in my experience.
Unless things have changed there are significant checks on the Northern Ireland - GB ferries. It's often the case that you will see people such as Army deserters being arrested.
When I drive back and forth on the ferry from Holyhead to Dublin there are zero checks at either end. Soon after Brexit I was stopped once in Dublin port to check whether I had more than the duty free allowance of booze. I've never had to show my passport. By law, you don't need one to move from the Republic to the UK.
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
Not sure whose post you are referring to, but you haven't addressed the points I made, but that is normal for you as you never do.
Are all these Tories I refer to lefties eg Heath's govt, Surrey County Council? Did you really mean to call your own current MPs lefties who support Comprehensive schools? They were your actual words re David Johnson. You have declared every Tory on this site as not being a real Tory at some time or other. You are now doing the same to previous and current govts and Tory controlled councils. Who is left?
Oh I absolutely have.
Tories who want to abolish grammars like David Johnson are a tiny minority of the party and no more really than members of your party, the LDs, who backed Brexit. They are irrelevant, indeed Sunak and Truss both backed grammars in the leadership campaign last year.
I notice you also refuse to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars, just to close them. Not much liberalism and parental choice there from you then!
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?
If so, then its legal, is it not?
Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.
Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.
Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.
Have you heard of international law?
Yes. Its a bad joke.
Parliament can override international law.
It can't override it, it can legislate to make it unenforceable in the UK. The UK then lives with the consequences of that because the international law still exists. In the case of the illegal immigration legislation, though, the government is saying it is not acting contrary to international law or seeking to make it unenforceable.
We live with the consequences then, if that is what we choose to do, that is a matter for politics not lawyers.
If Parliament passes a Bill overriding international law domestically, eg by legalising cannabis which I wholeheartedly support in violation of international law, then there are no international courts that can override the UK Parliament. Nor should there be.
Or the UN Declaration on Human Rights, that asserts the rights of all human beings to live in dignity regardless of ethnic origin, or the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Or the Geneva Conventions. Do you think the sovereign body in any sovereign country ought to be able to renege on any international law it wishes to, so long as it only does so domestically? So for example the Brazilian parliament could decide to exterminate the Yanomami people and they shouldn't be held responsible before an international court if they did?
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill...
Then read the bill. It says on its face that it's more probable than not that the new law conflicts with existing law - which is being left in place.
Far from unprecedented, is there a notwithstanding clause in place?
If so, then surely the new law takes precedence over the existing law, so the existing law remains law for all circumstances not covered by the new law?
No. The conflict is left in place. Secretary Suella Braverman has made the following statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998: I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
The only provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 formally set aside in the proposed bill is this one. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (interpretation of legislation) does not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act.
So if interpretation of legislation is set aside by the Act, and Parliament knowingly and openly proceeds to pass the Act knowing it contravenes the prior legislation, then does the new Act not take legal precedence over the prior Acts and can't be interpreted differently?
No.
Why no?
According to LexisNexis that is the way Parliament works:
It follows that, where a later Act of Parliament conflicts with an earlier one, the later one cannot be read as conditioned by, or subject to, the earlier. Rather, the later statute is considered to have repealed the earlier one by implication, to the extent of the conflict.
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.
The French borrowings tend to be older though.
I don’t think that’s true.
The front page (online) of Bild right now:
Live ticker Champions League insider Game of Homes Baby Too hot to handle Playboy VIP Tickets Star Film and Fun Handy Sex Stylebook Fitbook
Apart from names like 'Champions League' hardly any English to be seen at all apart from 'CASH CALL' which seems to be the name of a competition Bild is running.
I’ve actually missed out a dozen examples, there are so many
And that is the homepage of Bild
What surprises me is that entire sections of the website have English names
Lifestyle Stylebook Fitness studio Bestseller Mytravelbook Tech book
And so forth. This would annoy me mightily if English was being thus replaced by German words
Not at all sure what the Lib Dems stand for these days. They’re not a safe protest vote either. A zombie party.
Quite.
I struggle to name a single policy. Are they still the party of rejoin? Are they anything else?
Their biggest problem is they're only ever going to get into government in coalition with either Labour or the Tories, and we've no idea how they'll behave in coalition, though the 2010-2015 era gives us a few hints, i.e. if they have any red lines, they'll quickly drop them. But what even are those red lines? What would they push for, as part of a coalition government?
Having a clearly defined document of what their red lines would be and what they'd demand in exchange for, say, getting Labour over the line at the next GE would help a lot. All we have at the moment is their 2019 manifesto (simply titled "stop Brexit" - a bit late for that now...)
That is the problem with coalitions and why I oppose PR, you don't actually know when you cast your vote what you are actually voting for. A good example is 2015 I absolutely believe Cameron had the EU referendum in the manifesto purely as something to trade off with the Lib dems and expected another coalition
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.
The French borrowings tend to be older though.
I don’t think that’s true.
The front page (online) of Bild right now:
Live ticker Champions League insider Game of Homes Baby Too hot to handle Playboy VIP Tickets Star Film and Fun Handy Sex Stylebook Fitbook
Apart from names like 'Champions League' hardly any English to be seen at all apart from 'CASH CALL' which seems to be the name of a competition Bild is running.
For what it is worth I organised a business conference in Germany in the early 2000s. I guess for around 100 people. I was the only English speaker there. The entire conference was held in English. I was relieved but also a bit embarrassed.
Here’s a good example of the challenge facing the Liberal Democrats: a massive 36% of respondents in this survey (and this survey is fairly typical) do not feel that they know enough about the SLD leader to be able to give an opinion. Most of them have probably never even heard of him.
The GB LD leader Davey is so insignificant to Scottish public life that the pollster didn’t even bother asking about him.
Without figures for Forbes and Yousaf one of whom will be next SNP leader not much help as a comparison
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill...
Then read the bill. It says on its face that it's more probable than not that the new law conflicts with existing law - which is being left in place.
Far from unprecedented, is there a notwithstanding clause in place?
If so, then surely the new law takes precedence over the existing law, so the existing law remains law for all circumstances not covered by the new law?
No. The conflict is left in place. Secretary Suella Braverman has made the following statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998: I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
The only provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 formally set aside in the proposed bill is this one. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (interpretation of legislation) does not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act.
So if interpretation of legislation is set aside by the Act, and Parliament knowingly and openly proceeds to pass the Act knowing it contravenes the prior legislation, then does the new Act not take legal precedence over the prior Acts and can't be interpreted differently?
No.
Why no?
According to LexisNexis that is the way Parliament works:
It follows that, where a later Act of Parliament conflicts with an earlier one, the later one cannot be read as conditioned by, or subject to, the earlier. Rather, the later statute is considered to have repealed the earlier one by implication, to the extent of the conflict.
What reason do you have to believe that later laws do not take precedence over former ones?
The Home Secretary's own wording on the face of the bill.
We are not formally abrogating our treaty responsibilities under the HRA, which is why the conflict is left in place.
From your link - the very next paragraph, which you failed to quote: However in recent decades it has become accepted that at least in certain legal contexts (particularly in the context of European Union law and the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA 1972), and perhaps other 'constitutional' statutes) Parliament can enact provisions which, unless expressly repealed or amended, condition and limit the effect of later, conflicting enactments.
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill.
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
You dont need my opinion, the government does not think it legal!
Has the Government put a "notwithstanding" clause in?
If so, then its legal, is it not?
Get Betfair to put a market up and happy to accommodate backers of legal.
Parliament sets the law. If Parliament says something is legal, then it is legal.
Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.
Have you heard of international law?
Yes. Its a bad joke.
Parliament can override international law.
It can't override it, it can legislate to make it unenforceable in the UK. The UK then lives with the consequences of that because the international law still exists. In the case of the illegal immigration legislation, though, the government is saying it is not acting contrary to international law or seeking to make it unenforceable.
We live with the consequences then, if that is what we choose to do, that is a matter for politics not lawyers.
If Parliament passes a Bill overriding international law domestically, eg by legalising cannabis which I wholeheartedly support in violation of international law, then there are no international courts that can override the UK Parliament. Nor should there be.
Or the UN Declaration on Human Rights, that asserts the rights of all human beings to live in dignity regardless of ethnic origin, or the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Or the Geneva Conventions. Do you think the sovereign body in any sovereign country ought to be able to renege on any international law it wishes to, so long as it only does so domestically? So for example the Brazilian parliament could decide to exterminate the Yanomami people and they shouldn't be held responsible before an international court if they did?
The shitmunchers that are the target audience for this travesty of a policy actively want the government to breach international law in a conspicuous fashion.
Here’s a good example of the challenge facing the Liberal Democrats: a massive 36% of respondents in this survey (and this survey is fairly typical) do not feel that they know enough about the SLD leader to be able to give an opinion. Most of them have probably never even heard of him.
Tbf that'll be partly down to Cole-Hamilton being a shy, retiring publicity-shunning type..
He’s a wee gobshite. But thankfully an invisible wee gobshite.
Quite surprised at that dissatisfied figure for SKS, doesn't suggest a massive resurgence of affection for the party of which SLab is a sub branch.
Given that you seem to take notice of outdated surveys, here's one that's less than a month out of date, compared to the one that you're quoting from that's more than three months out of date.
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
That’s it. That’s the choice. Not good
Even on that dodgy framing (3) is superior. Certainly better than the Cons trying to head off a far right party by becoming one.
But although I usually like defeatism - it's quite underrated as a mindset imo - it's overly defeatist to assume nothing effective can be done about this issue that doesn't involve the dehumanization of vulnerable people. I'm pretty suspicious of those who say this so readily. It can be hard to distinguish a muscular, clear-sighted rejection of liberal waffle from a genuine enthusiasm for far right 'solutions' to protect 'us' from 'them' - since in polite society the second tends to dress up as the first.
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.
The French borrowings tend to be older though.
I don’t think that’s true.
The front page (online) of Bild right now:
Live ticker Champions League insider Game of Homes Baby Too hot to handle Playboy VIP Tickets Star Film and Fun Handy Sex Stylebook Fitbook
Apart from names like 'Champions League' hardly any English to be seen at all apart from 'CASH CALL' which seems to be the name of a competition Bild is running.
I’ve actually missed out a dozen examples, there are so many
And that is the homepage of Bild
Hate to say it, but you are quite correct. Even more noticeable in the Swedish language.
I confidently* predict that Swedish will be in practice extinct in 100 years.
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.
The Tory Party donors do not like this one.....I wonder why......
When employers have cooperated with the police/immigration to highlight undocumented workers, they have met with a wall of abuse from the Left.
The difference with my suggestion is paying for the information. Which will increase the reporting/prosecuting rate to 100%
Every ambulance chasing solicitor will be on this like a tramp on chips.
Average fine of £5k if caught will not change the economic incenvtives for those who are not motivated by morals or the law. Make it £100k per employee and the incentives change.
Let them work. We need them.
If they are working illegally - the government isn't seeing the income tax revenue
Make it legal. Make it easy to get an NI number. We are short of people of working age.
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
I don't understand why a would be migrant, with the money to pay for a boat trip, doesn't instead buy some decent clothes and luggage and take a holiday in Ireland. They can then come to the UK on a ferry as a tourist with zero checks in my experience.
Ireland isn't in Schengen, so they would need a visa to board a ferry or a plane. And if the can't get a visa to enter the UK, the chances are they would not get one to enter Ireland either.
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.
Given many scandinavians appear to speak better English than the English that would not be hard.
Here’s a good example of the challenge facing the Liberal Democrats: a massive 36% of respondents in this survey (and this survey is fairly typical) do not feel that they know enough about the SLD leader to be able to give an opinion. Most of them have probably never even heard of him.
Tbf that'll be partly down to Cole-Hamilton being a shy, retiring publicity-shunning type..
He’s a wee gobshite. But thankfully an invisible wee gobshite.
Quite surprised at that dissatisfied figure for SKS, doesn't suggest a massive resurgence of affection for the party of which SLab is a sub branch.
Good morning
It would be more relevant if this poll was conducted now following the SNP pushing their self destruct button in public
Huh?
SNP 46% Lab 30% Con 10% LD 9% Grn 2% Ref 2%
(Deltapoll; 1,063; 2-6 March)
Sub samples are not polls
I believe a Scottish poll is due soon which may well reflect yesterday's public self destruction by the SNP
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
I don't understand why a would be migrant, with the money to pay for a boat trip, doesn't instead buy some decent clothes and luggage and take a holiday in Ireland. They can then come to the UK on a ferry as a tourist with zero checks in my experience.
1. That is already happening in both directions, to an extent
2. However there is the issue of having to show your passport when you arrive in Ireland from non-UK destinations. Ireland is not in Schengen
I dislike this policy, which seems government by headline rather than law. I dislike Lineker's reaction, which is ludicrously over the top and demeans himself. And I dislike Jenrick's response, which is excessively harsh.
Will there be a fourth domino in this line of nincompoopery?
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.
The French borrowings tend to be older though.
I don’t think that’s true.
The front page (online) of Bild right now:
Live ticker Champions League insider Game of Homes Baby Too hot to handle Playboy VIP Tickets Star Film and Fun Handy Sex Stylebook Fitbook
Apart from names like 'Champions League' hardly any English to be seen at all apart from 'CASH CALL' which seems to be the name of a competition Bild is running.
I’ve actually missed out a dozen examples, there are so many
And that is the homepage of Bild
What surprises me is that entire sections of the website have English names
Lifestyle Stylebook Fitness studio Bestseller Mytravelbook Tech book
And so forth. This would annoy me mightily if English was being thus replaced by German words
Robert Jenrick has demanded Lineker is sacked. Richard Sharpe and Tim Davie own the BBC who are now investigating. In my view Lineker is toast!
The usual suspects: it's ridiculous to suggest that the BBC is a state broadcaster Members of HMG: SACK THAT SPORTS PRESENTER FOR CRITICISING THE GOVERNMENT OF HMG!!!
Here’s a good example of the challenge facing the Liberal Democrats: a massive 36% of respondents in this survey (and this survey is fairly typical) do not feel that they know enough about the SLD leader to be able to give an opinion. Most of them have probably never even heard of him.
Tbf that'll be partly down to Cole-Hamilton being a shy, retiring publicity-shunning type..
He’s a wee gobshite. But thankfully an invisible wee gobshite.
Quite surprised at that dissatisfied figure for SKS, doesn't suggest a massive resurgence of affection for the party of which SLab is a sub branch.
Good morning
It would be more relevant if this poll was conducted now following the SNP pushing their self destruct button in public
Huh?
SNP 46% Lab 30% Con 10% LD 9% Grn 2% Ref 2%
(Deltapoll; 1,063; 2-6 March)
Sub samples are not polls
I believe a Scottish poll is due soon which may well reflect yesterday's public self destruction by the SNP
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
That’s it. That’s the choice. Not good
Even on that dodgy framing (3) is superior. Certainly better than the Cons trying to head off a far right party by becoming one. But although I usually like defeatism - it's quite underrated as a mindset imo - it's overly defeatist to assume nothing effective can be done about this issue that doesn't involve the dehumanization of vulnerable people.
In fact I'm pretty suspicious of those who say this so readily. It can be hard to distinguish a muscular, clear-sighted rejection of liberal waffle from a genuine enthusiasm for far right 'solutions' to protect 'us' from 'them' - since in polite society the second tends to dress up as the first.
There's also another option, anyway:
4. Make the UK so economically unattractive and enough of a basket case that no one wants to come here
(I jest, of course, the UK is a very attractive place to come to, but it does sometimes seem as though the present government is thinking very hard about what they could do to follow this route)
Here’s a good example of the challenge facing the Liberal Democrats: a massive 36% of respondents in this survey (and this survey is fairly typical) do not feel that they know enough about the SLD leader to be able to give an opinion. Most of them have probably never even heard of him.
Tbf that'll be partly down to Cole-Hamilton being a shy, retiring publicity-shunning type..
He’s a wee gobshite. But thankfully an invisible wee gobshite.
Quite surprised at that dissatisfied figure for SKS, doesn't suggest a massive resurgence of affection for the party of which SLab is a sub branch.
Good morning
It would be more relevant if this poll was conducted now following the SNP pushing their self destruct button in public
Huh?
SNP 46% Lab 30% Con 10% LD 9% Grn 2% Ref 2%
(Deltapoll; 1,063; 2-6 March)
Sub samples are not polls
I believe a Scottish poll is due soon which may well reflect yesterday's public self destruction by the SNP
SNP Armageddon No.45,121
Yawn.
It must be very hard for you to witness the SNP in self destruct mode as well as Sweden being the worst performing economy in the EU
I dislike this policy, which seems government by headline rather than law. I dislike Lineker's reaction, which is ludicrously over the top and demeans himself. And I dislike Jenrick's response, which is excessively harsh.
Will there be a fourth domino in this line of nincompoopery?
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
I don't understand why a would be migrant, with the money to pay for a boat trip, doesn't instead buy some decent clothes and luggage and take a holiday in Ireland. They can then come to the UK on a ferry as a tourist with zero checks in my experience.
1. That is already happening in both directions, to an extent
2. However there is the issue of having to show your passport when you arrive in Ireland from non-UK destinations. Ireland is not in Schengen
Ironically, lots of Irish people are now complaining that asylum seekers/dinghy people who make it to the UK are now crossing the soft NI/Eire border, moving into Ireland, intensifying the Irish migrant crisis
This is the soft border they demand. Be careful what you wish for
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.
The French borrowings tend to be older though.
I don’t think that’s true.
The front page (online) of Bild right now:
Live ticker Champions League insider Game of Homes Baby Too hot to handle Playboy VIP Tickets Star Film and Fun Handy Sex Stylebook Fitbook
Apart from names like 'Champions League' hardly any English to be seen at all apart from 'CASH CALL' which seems to be the name of a competition Bild is running.
I’ve actually missed out a dozen examples, there are so many
And that is the homepage of Bild
What surprises me is that entire sections of the website have English names
Lifestyle Stylebook Fitness studio Bestseller Mytravelbook Tech book
And so forth. This would annoy me mightily if English was being thus replaced by German words
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill...
Then read the bill. It says on its face that it's more probable than not that the new law conflicts with existing law - which is being left in place.
Far from unprecedented, is there a notwithstanding clause in place?
If so, then surely the new law takes precedence over the existing law, so the existing law remains law for all circumstances not covered by the new law?
No. The conflict is left in place. Secretary Suella Braverman has made the following statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998: I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
The only provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 formally set aside in the proposed bill is this one. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (interpretation of legislation) does not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act.
So if interpretation of legislation is set aside by the Act, and Parliament knowingly and openly proceeds to pass the Act knowing it contravenes the prior legislation, then does the new Act not take legal precedence over the prior Acts and can't be interpreted differently?
No.
Why no?
According to LexisNexis that is the way Parliament works:
It follows that, where a later Act of Parliament conflicts with an earlier one, the later one cannot be read as conditioned by, or subject to, the earlier. Rather, the later statute is considered to have repealed the earlier one by implication, to the extent of the conflict.
What reason do you have to believe that later laws do not take precedence over former ones?
The Home Secretary's own wording on the face of the bill.
We are not formally abrogating our treaty responsibilities under the HRA, which is why the conflict is left in place.
From your link - the very next paragraph, which you failed to quote: However in recent decades it has become accepted that at least in certain legal contexts (particularly in the context of European Union law and the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA 1972), and perhaps other 'constitutional' statutes) Parliament can enact provisions which, unless expressly repealed or amended, condition and limit the effect of later, conflicting enactments.
But in the text of the Bill, Section 3 of the HRA (which is the relevant provision for ruling whether later acts violate the HRA) is expressly abrogated.
So what provision leaves the conflict, if Section 3 expressly does not apply?
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.
The French borrowings tend to be older though.
I don’t think that’s true.
The front page (online) of Bild right now:
Live ticker Champions League insider Game of Homes Baby Too hot to handle Playboy VIP Tickets Star Film and Fun Handy Sex Stylebook Fitbook
Apart from names like 'Champions League' hardly any English to be seen at all apart from 'CASH CALL' which seems to be the name of a competition Bild is running.
I’ve actually missed out a dozen examples, there are so many
And that is the homepage of Bild
What surprises me is that entire sections of the website have English names
Lifestyle Stylebook Fitness studio Bestseller Mytravelbook Tech book
And so forth. This would annoy me mightily if English was being thus replaced by German words
Well, hasn't Lineker said that the language of the dinghy proposals is similar to that of 1930s Germany?
Robert Jenrick has demanded Lineker is sacked. Richard Sharpe and Tim Davie own the BBC who are now investigating. In my view Lineker is toast!
The usual suspects: it's ridiculous to suggest that the BBC is a state broadcaster Members of HMG: SACK THAT SPORTS PRESENTER FOR CRITICISING THE GOVERNMENT OF HMG!!!
Removing critical voices in the media definitely not the kind of thing the Nazis would do, so outrageous that Lineker compared the government to the Nazis.
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.
I have not read the proposed Bill or much of the news regarding it so can't comment specifically on the proposed Bill...
Then read the bill. It says on its face that it's more probable than not that the new law conflicts with existing law - which is being left in place.
Far from unprecedented, is there a notwithstanding clause in place?
If so, then surely the new law takes precedence over the existing law, so the existing law remains law for all circumstances not covered by the new law?
No. The conflict is left in place. Secretary Suella Braverman has made the following statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998: I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
The only provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 formally set aside in the proposed bill is this one. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (interpretation of legislation) does not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act.
So if interpretation of legislation is set aside by the Act, and Parliament knowingly and openly proceeds to pass the Act knowing it contravenes the prior legislation, then does the new Act not take legal precedence over the prior Acts and can't be interpreted differently?
No.
Why no?
According to LexisNexis that is the way Parliament works:
It follows that, where a later Act of Parliament conflicts with an earlier one, the later one cannot be read as conditioned by, or subject to, the earlier. Rather, the later statute is considered to have repealed the earlier one by implication, to the extent of the conflict.
What reason do you have to believe that later laws do not take precedence over former ones?
The Home Secretary's own wording on the face of the bill.
We are not formally abrogating our treaty responsibilities under the HRA, which is why the conflict is left in place.
From your link - the very next paragraph, which you failed to quote: However in recent decades it has become accepted that at least in certain legal contexts (particularly in the context of European Union law and the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA 1972), and perhaps other 'constitutional' statutes) Parliament can enact provisions which, unless expressly repealed or amended, condition and limit the effect of later, conflicting enactments.
The "constitutional statutes" theory got yet another thrashing by the Supreme Court in the referendum referral case. It is a theory beloved of academics who want to impose some sort of structure on our constitutional anarchy but the courts have shown very little interest. And the ECA 1972 is now, of course, repealed.
I think that the HRA has had broader effect in that it does not override primary legislation (it can override subsidiary legislation it deems incompatible) but constrains the court to construe the new Act in a way consistent with the Convention. In respect of the current bill this is going to require minds a lot cleverer than mine.
Comments
ETA: There's also the question (which I don't think is answered in the stats) of what proportion of male domestic violence victims are being abused by men rather than women.
The numbers for “report to some kind of organisation” rather than just the police were higher, but similarly ratio’d
It's all very well thinking that people smuggling should be stopped but that's a long way from appointing someone who appears to have a total disregard for those less fortunate than themselves. Hollywood would struggle to invent a character like Braverman. Since Javier Bardem in 'No Country for Old Men' audiences have demanded nuance in their monsters.
We might not like some of SKS's fellow travellers but as yet he hasn't appointed any monsters to senior positions. When and if he does it might be worth a rethink. But priority number one has to be the removal of the Nasty Party. All of them. As Peter O'Toole said in L of A "No Prisoners!"
However Australia is in the Refugee Convention and has had a similar policy before. Which was ruled legal by its domestic Courts. And the policy has worked in its objectives.
If you disagree with the policy, then that should be a matter for political debate, not legal arguments. If Parliament passes a law saying this is legal, then that should be the law, just as it was elsewhere.
The GB LD leader Davey is so insignificant to Scottish public life that the pollster didn’t even bother asking about him.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208991/British-firms-fined-10m-employing-2-000-illegal-immigrants.html
When employers have cooperated with the police/immigration to highlight undocumented workers, they have met with a wall of abuse from the Left.
The difference with my suggestion is paying for the information. Which will increase the reporting/prosecuting rate to 100%
Every ambulance chasing solicitor will be on this like a tramp on chips.
The front page (online) of Bild right now:
Live ticker
Champions League
insider
Game of Homes
Baby
Too hot to handle
Playboy
VIP Tickets
Star
Film and Fun
Handy
Sex
Stylebook
Fitbook
Etc etc etc
Endless
https://www.bild.de/
On more than one occasion, after being put in hospital by his wife, he was arrested by police. The grounds were, as I understand it, that if he was in that state, he must have done *some* violence to her.
Strangely, he refuses to go to the police, now.
If so, then its legal, is it not?
The irony is that we've been saying it on here for 3+ years and it's a very easy quick fix that no opposition party is going to be able to argue against yet the Government doesn't even seem to have looked at it.
Which presumably means they would have to amend those other laws or amend the bill (Act by then) if challenged and the challenge succeeds.
As you say, the government creates laws that is not the issue. The issue is that the law they are proposing may break some of their existing laws.
Edit: politically I think they'll say "bring it on". Reports have described them as "very relaxed" about any challenges. Because they know politically it is popular to try to stop the boats.
It says on its face that it's more probable than not that the new law conflicts with existing law - which is being left in place.
Men marrying other men wasn't legal. Parliament changed the law, now it is. That is what Parliament is for.
Fix it and more likely they will lose their seats.
If so, then surely the new law takes precedence over the existing law, so the existing law remains law for all circumstances not covered by the new law?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/10/germany-labour-shortage-english-second-official-language
Parliament can override international law.
It would be more relevant if this poll was conducted now following the SNP pushing their self destruct button in public
Are all these Tories I refer to lefties eg Heath's govt, Surrey County Council? Did you really mean to call your own current MPs lefties who support Comprehensive schools? They were your actual words re David Johnson. You have declared every Tory on this site as not being a real Tory at some time or other. You are now doing the same to previous and current govts and Tory controlled councils. Who is left?
As to why not - during the New Labour years a relative running a building business repeatedly reported instance of illegal and dangerous activities by other firms. He was told not to make trouble since it would only disrupt the way things are. The same comments carried on through the change in government.
With occasional “don’t be racist” - the companies nearly always are run by an immigrant exploiting fellow immigrants from the same country. The classic trick is to bring in people who speak no English - easier to control.
We have seen during COVID some of what goes on - I’m thinking of the conditions in factories around Leicester, for example.
I dislike Cannabis, I think smoking it is a very bad idea, but I think it should be completely legalised and regulated. I think prohibition has failed, and that legalisation and regulation as has been done in Canada for instance is a much better idea.
International Law forbids the legalisation of Cannabis. Canada chose, quite rightly in my humble opinion, to say that notwithstanding International Law they are going to legalise it anyway. The UK can and should do the same.
What the Law of the Land should be should be a matter for Parliament and political debate. If the law is an ass, change it.
If Parliament passes a Bill overriding international law domestically, eg by legalising cannabis which I wholeheartedly support in violation of international law, then there are no international courts that can override the UK Parliament. Nor should there be.
This bill is probably the first ever to say, on its face, that it probably conflicts with existing UK law, but that law is being left in place.
All of your examples have no relevance to that.
Lawyers will always test laws in a democracy. We should be pleased that they do. It forces legislators to act lawfully.
The American captain demanded the slave back, citing international law.
The RN Captain told him to do one.
Exceptions to the law happen all the time, notwithstanding clauses can even appear within the very same law let alone a separate law.
Just because you dislike this law, does not make it original. The principle of saying this is the law, notwithstanding another law, is far from original.
How’s the cricket?
I dislike this policy, which seems government by headline rather than law. I dislike Lineker's reaction, which is ludicrously over the top and demeans himself. And I dislike Jenrick's response, which is excessively harsh.
Will there be a fourth domino in this line of nincompoopery?
The Canadians, deliberately and rightly in my view, chose to break the law as it stood and eventually the law caught up with them. That's sovereign democracy and quite right too.
If eg the ECHR signed in 1950 had defined in International Law marriage as being between one man and one woman only, and countries were vetoing attempts to amend that, then would you have supported the UK legalising equality in marriage in deliberate contravention of that international law? I would have.
The conflict is left in place.
Secretary Suella Braverman has made the following statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998:
I am unable to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Illegal Migration Bill are compatible with the Convention rights, but the Government nevertheless wishes the House to proceed with the Bill.
The only provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 formally set aside in the proposed bill is this one.
Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (interpretation of legislation) does not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act.
2. However there is the issue of having to show your passport when you arrive in Ireland from non-UK destinations. Ireland is not in Schengen
It is quite formally setting up a conflict and not resolving it.
And 'front page' is pushing it a bit. You seem to have scrolled through the entire website!
You can see today's actual front page here:
https://www.frontpages.com/bild/
Apart from names like 'Champions League' hardly any English to be seen at all apart from 'CASH CALL' which seems to be the name of a competition Bild is running.
SNP 46%
Lab 30%
Con 10%
LD 9%
Grn 2%
Ref 2%
(Deltapoll; 1,063; 2-6 March)
It is being left deliberately as a conflict which will be fought out in the courts. With all the attendant "betraying Britain" headlines.
If they wanted to override the HRA1998 provisions as you suggest, they could and would have done so in the text of the bill.
Tories who want to abolish grammars like David Johnson are a tiny minority of the party and no more really than members of your party, the LDs, who backed Brexit. They are irrelevant, indeed Sunak and Truss both backed grammars in the leadership campaign last year.
I notice you also refuse to allow parents to ballot to open new grammars, just to close them. Not much liberalism and parental choice there from you then!
According to LexisNexis that is the way Parliament works:
It follows that, where a later Act of Parliament conflicts with an earlier one, the later one cannot be read as conditioned by, or subject to, the earlier. Rather, the later statute is considered to have repealed the earlier one by implication, to the extent of the conflict.
https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/legal/guidance/parliamentary-supremacy-implied-repeal
What reason do you have to believe that later laws do not take precedence over former ones?
And that is the homepage of Bild
What surprises me is that entire sections of the website have English names
Lifestyle
Stylebook
Fitness studio
Bestseller
Mytravelbook
Tech book
And so forth. This would annoy me mightily if English was being thus replaced by German words
We are not formally abrogating our treaty responsibilities under the HRA, which is why the conflict is left in place.
From your link - the very next paragraph, which you failed to quote:
However in recent decades it has become accepted that at least in certain legal contexts (particularly in the context of European Union law and the European Communities Act 1972 (ECA 1972), and perhaps other 'constitutional' statutes) Parliament can enact provisions which, unless expressly repealed or amended, condition and limit the effect of later, conflicting enactments.
https://scottishelections.ac.uk/2023/02/23/scoop-monitor-im-that-poll/
But although I usually like defeatism - it's quite underrated as a mindset imo - it's overly defeatist to assume nothing effective can be done about this issue that doesn't involve the dehumanization of vulnerable people. I'm pretty suspicious of those who say this so readily. It can be hard to distinguish a muscular, clear-sighted rejection of liberal waffle from a genuine enthusiasm for far right 'solutions' to protect 'us' from 'them' - since in polite society the second tends to dress up as the first.
I confidently* predict that Swedish will be in practice extinct in 100 years.
(*confidently, cos we’ll a be lang deid)
I believe a Scottish poll is due soon which may well reflect yesterday's public self destruction by the SNP
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/moving_country/visas_for_ireland/visas_for_tourists_visiting_ireland.html
For me travelling to Ireland is like going to Wales or Scotland.
Members of HMG: SACK THAT SPORTS PRESENTER FOR CRITICISING THE GOVERNMENT OF HMG!!!
Yawn.
4. Make the UK so economically unattractive and enough of a basket case that no one wants to come here
(I jest, of course, the UK is a very attractive place to come to, but it does sometimes seem as though the present government is thinking very hard about what they could do to follow this route)
This is the soft border they demand. Be careful what you wish for
Oh, damn.
So what provision leaves the conflict, if Section 3 expressly does not apply?
I think that the HRA has had broader effect in that it does not override primary legislation (it can override subsidiary legislation it deems incompatible) but constrains the court to construe the new Act in a way consistent with the Convention. In respect of the current bill this is going to require minds a lot cleverer than mine.